This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Could you elaborate on what you are talking about?
US prosperity is downstream from the cultural and social mores that much of the world widely admires.
That’s one hypothesis. The other, less flattering hypothesis, is that US prosperity is downstream of your ancestors conquering a massive continent full of natural resources, plus being the one left standing when your rivals annihilated each other in two world wars.
Either is possible, but it seems wise to beware the flattering option precisely because it’s more seductive.
In particular, it leads to the conclusion that foreigners and immigrants admire you for your culture and wish to uphold it. Europe fell for the same trap - people don’t come to Britain because they admire British Values, they come because they want a share of Britain’s prosperity relative to the third world.
Or perhaps you should beware the option that flatters your ideological commitments. It's equally as convenient/inconvenient to admit that America really does do things well, it just depends where you're standing.
It's very convenient for Americans to pretend that we're successful because of our unique national ideals and character. And it's very convenient for Europeans to pretend that it's all just a historical accident.
Fair, but at least I have been an economic liberal. My current ideological commitments come in large part from observing that economic liberalism != prosperity. At best, it’s a prerequisite.
And going back to the original point, it’s important to realise that most pro-Americans don’t believe it. I’ve known some immigrants who were very pro free market but most are not. They want American power and prosperity not American values. Nobody gave a damn about British values once we lost the empire. Likewise people only started treating China and Japan with respect when they became rich.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s kinda both though. Just being the owner of land with resources doesn’t make you a rich country. And being on land that doesn’t have those resources doesn’t make you poor. Russia has a lot of oil and mineral wealth. Nobody wants to live there. Hong Kong and Taiwan are both pretty small countries, but they’re wealthy. Thus I submit to you that America is not successful just because of our land. A good bit of our success is due to our people and the values they hold. Things like productivity and meritocracy, traditional morality, innovation and adoption of technology, freedom from government interference.
It also probably doesn't help that Russia is really fucking cold.
More options
Context Copy link
Wrong, I'd like to live in both Moscow or Sankt Petersburg, and probably wouldn't mind many other places.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Natural resources are not a primary or even secondary predictor of national production. This is a silly leftist meme.
Per OEC, the US's largest commodity export sector is "mineral resources", almost entirely in energy (oil, coal, etc.). The US is underperforming as a primary producer for regulatory reasons, but there isn't much under the ground that can't be found in North America.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't see how natural resources can be as unimportant as you're claiming. You need something to work with in order for your nation to produce shit. That means either you need the materials yourself, or some other resource you can trade to those who do have the materials. Of course natural resources can't be the only factor, history shows that sometimes people with more resources wind up losing. But to say it isn't an important factor at all ("not a primary or even secondary predictor") seems like it's going too far in the other direction.
More options
Context Copy link
National resources aren't the most important thing but they're certainly important. It doesn't hurt that Saudi Arabia has a gazillion barrels of crude. Back in the 1930s they were almost totally irrelevant, oil put them on the map. Nor is the US disadvantaged by having enormous reserves of oil, coal, iron and fertile soil.
If natural resource wealth were the primary determinant of economic success, South America would blow the USA out of the water with its relative geographic safety and immense wealth. Yet their people all seek to emigrate to the USA.
Speak to third world migrants and they all have a distorted but extant view of USA as the shining city on the hill where their labors will not be seized by a politico or a noble. For all the complaints about the oppressive foot of the US government on the necks of its people that commentators both left and right love to decry, nothing compares to the petty corruptions that smother daily life in third world countries. Hell, the US governmental oppressiveness does not compare to the bureaucratic machine steamrolling across people and businesses in relatively competent western european institutions.
The gilded cities of gold promised to migrants by their kin that landed in the USA through their own sweat and toil is real for them, when compared to the shittiness of their home countries. The USA is not Europe where the promises of riches and success are so dependent on navigating local bureaucratic contexts that the promises of wealth are afforded better by criminality and fraud.
USA is not perfect, and there are many migrants who have found the US wanting compared to their homes. But it is telling that there are so many more who wish to drape themselves in the stars and stripes and disclaim loyalty to their home countries. Grifters do exist, and the USA under the democrats refused to acknowledge that bad actors could possibly exist, but Europe provides both a compliant state and weak people to leech off on. Barring the Canadian collapse, the USA will be able to stave off the camp of the saints for a good while more.
South America isn't even that rich, so much of it is worthless jungle full of terrible creatures that eat you alive. They do have a lot of metallic minerals. But the US alone probably started off with more fossil fuels than all of South America combined, American resources are staggering.
Much of it's probably been drilled up by now but still, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer right now... Americans are far too eager to credit their institutions as opposed to their massive resource wealth, river networks, sea access, fertile soil and (most importantly) high performing demographics. Many have tried to copy US institutions and found it unhelpful, it's like rich people humblebragging about how they worked so hard. Hard work is some of the answer but it is not the most important thing, compared to working smart, being in the right place at the right time...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That’s clearly part of it but America also has an entrepreneurial spirit that Europe does not. By 1990, Europe had almost caught up to the United States. But since then the US has grown and grown while Europe has stagnated. That has nothing to do with WWII and everything to do with Europe’s self destructive socialist tendencies.
I'm perfectly willing to blame at least half of that stagnation on US foreign policy specifically. Not just because the American defense umbrella allows for shambolic spending on social concerns instead of industrial and research concerns, but primarily because they engaged in very specific direct and indirect actions to prevent European economic activity outpacing that of the USA. And they did so in conjunction with the USSR, ironically enough.
I don't blame the Americans for wanting to stay on top, nor am I deluded enough to think that Europeans are blameless, but the idea that Europe's incapable of embracing entrepreneurship is silly given that it was the literal birthplace of the industrial revolution.
The fact that Europe was the birthplace of literal capitalism (and this after the US had been established) is an even stronger argument IMO.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Wholly willing to believe that culture has an effect, or that culture and prosperity can interact in positive or negative loops.
But I think the point still stands that people are willing to imitate American culture for precisely as long as they think it will make them rich, and that the ‘liberalism reliably causes prosperity’ thesis is not as strong as people sometimes make it out to be.
On a separate point, Britain still has a pretty entrepreneurial culture - we make lots of startups. But almost all of them go to the USA. Partly because of regulation, but also because that’s where all the investor funding is. Prosperity begets prosperity. Poverty begets cautiousness.
On a separate, separate note I think Europe’s 1990s prosperity was a dead cat bounce, caused by opening the country up to wild financialism and selling off everything to wealthy foreign buyers. Not all of it - beating socialism and the unions clearly had an effect. But not nearly enough to become America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Canada and Mexico have many of those same advantages but are still less prosperous than the US.
Maybe. My impression is that Canada is colder, more impassable and has less resources than its more prosperous cousin, but is still reasonably ok. And that Mexico is largely arid and not over blessed with natural resources. Someone with more geographic knowledge is welcome to jump in.
But look at Britain or Western Europe. You can say that they fell into disrepair as they became less liberal, or you could say that people were less willing to tolerate a liberal culture as they became less prosperous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link