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 -
I don't think the point about Hitler's identity politics is as surprising as you make it out to be, given that the deaths caused by Lenin and Mao are not exactly a secret. In fact, this is what the difference in their assessment often openly stems from - Hitler's stated goals (which really are those same identity politics you are talking about) are taken to be evil, but the goals of Lenin and Mao are generally actually perceived as a deontological or virtuous good even by many of those (common in the US) who consider them a utilitarian evil. If you wreak murder at an inconceivable scale in the service of evil goals, you are a particularly insidious (because effective) kind of evil; if you however wreak murder in your pursuit of good, you are seen as closer to something like a tragic or merely misguided, even antiheroic figure.
It's easy for resentful right-wingers to see this as a simple case of who/whom thinking being conveniently weaponised against them, but unless you specifically subscribe to (or want to no-enemies-on-the-right) Hitler's brand of identity politics, you are not actually the [antonym of beneficiary]. In the grand scheme of things, most murderous movements in history are actually tolerated, including ones that would unambiguously code conservative in the modern eye - nobody bats an eye at Genghis Khan branding, and even crusader chic is still on the menu (could you imagine a grand strategy game like Crusader Kings II, but modelling the political tug-of-war between Hitler's Gauleiters?) despite their portfolio including religiously motivated rape, murder and land grabs against people further down the progressive stack, use of child soldiers and much more.
Not exactly a secret, but not nearly as embedded in our cultural consciousness as those caused by Hitler. You should try asking 30 young adults who the most prolific mass murderers of the 20th century were. I did that experiment several times in the 90's. Stalin was rarely mentioned, and Mao was never mentioned once. Hitler was always the first name on the collective lips of the class. The situation is probably a little different now, but I would be very surprised if perception has caught up to reality.
More options
Context Copy link
At least with hitler, as long as you weren’t… a jew, a slav, a jehovah’s witness, a political opponent, a homosexual, a cripple… you were sort of safe cravenly heil hitlering your way though the war-torn hellscape. Whereas for the khmer rouge, the entire present population was fair game. It was all about the future. And if the present clay wasn’t molding fast enough into the ‘new man’, throw it away and try again, as many times as it takes. They went beyond identity politics, there was no ingroup left.
My eye does twitch involuntarily when people say genghis khan's empire 'opened up trade lanes' and 'travelers had never been so safe'.
I don’t believe in the hierarchy of motives. If you had offered to take the ‘undesirables’ off hitler’s hands, he would have happily agreed, just like the communist only wants successful reeducation for capitalists. The deciding moment comes after the original optimistic plan fails. You can then either give up on the idea, or find that you “have to” apply more force for reeducation than you thought, and so tragically break a few eggs in the process/ murder everyone out of convenience. The relevant moral lines are broken here, not on the higher level of goals.
I agree with you that Nazi persecution was more predictable and narrowly targeted than that of the communists, but you left one important group off your list of those who were marked for death by the Nazis: people who would not keep their mouth shut and their tail between their legs. The fact that there were so few of these is a testament to how ironically wrong Hitler was about the alleged greatness of the German Volk. Hitler pointedly lambasts sycophants in Mein Kampf, but he hypocritically demanded it of his vassals and subjects, on pain of death. Hitler reigned over a nation of Spucklecker (spit lickers; his term for sycophants) -- and if they hadn't been, he couldn't have.
I don't think spit-licker is too unkind a term for someone who professes Christianity, and yet silently, passively watches the Nazi persecution of the Jews. I have never done anything so brave as stand up to a murderous tyrannical regime, and so I cannot claim that I would have done anything different than what most Germans did, even most of the ones who recognized Hitler as a ruinous, berserk tyrant. Maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't. What I am saying is that those of us who are (or might be) spit-lickers should recognize those among us those who demonstrably aren't, such as Deitrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemöller, as better men than us in the most important way. In the words of Solzhenitsyn,
I'm not a Christian, but my first thought was: Did either of these men have children? I tried to look it up, Wikipedia says Bonhoeffer did not. It doesn't mention any children for Niemoller either--do you know?
My mom is a fan of this Vietnam-era song:
I'm reminded too of that E.M. Forster quote: "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country."
IOW there are more potential loyalties someone could have than just to their principles, religion, country...or self. (That Forster quote could be used to support either "side"--"Betray your country, whose government has been taken over by evil people, for the sake of your friend, who is a good person targeted by those evil people"; or, "Betray your principles, in this case the desire to save your country from its evil government, for the sake of your friend (and family and self).")
I agree it that it is much easier to be a Martyr if you aren't the head of a household. So it is reasonable to expect more heroism for God and country from single men than young married men, for example. On the other hand, I also think that does not excuse the behavior of German so-called Christians at large under Nazi rule, by more than a smidgeon.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not to be all atheist, but one of the things I find most discrediting to the Church’s claim of providing moral guidance was its shameful compromising with hitler. Even though it was clear to church leaders that nazism was both generally evil, and opposed to the power of the church as such. Unlike the german people, who were more bribed than threatened into compliance with the regime (so can be said to be morally corrupted, and complicit), the church’s behaviour reflects pure moral cowardice.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They are deontologically evil, I've brought this up before though on a different subject. Star Control has an origin story for a comically evil race be the pursuit of the perfect good. They achieved it, but then overdid it, resulting in the ultimate evil. Same principle.
I assumed we are talking about the beliefs of typical people rather than us assorted degenerates haunting the Motte, since we are trying to explain why the general populace is more comfortable with Mao/Lenin quotes than with Hitler quotes. If you do not actually believe Hitler quotes to be less appropriate to quote approvingly than Mao/Lenin quotes, then your moral beliefs on the topic are not particularly relevant.
Then isn't the simpler explanation the years of propaganda they go through in public schools, or all the media portraying him as the ultimate evil, while the ins and outs of communism are mostly glossed over? It's not lime most people are doing an in-depth ethical analysis of each system and the ideas behind them.
I'm surprised this has not been the go-to explanation in the discussion. The clue is not that Hitler is stigmatized, but the pattern of the what Moldbug calls the "cathedral" minimizing and excusing communist atrocities even after they became known. I think this pattern is obvious.
More options
Context Copy link
At least at the German school I attended they covered in sufficient detail the beliefs associated with communism and the various skull mountains associated with it, but apart from the one token card-carrying neonazi kid (who wanted to become a tank driver but I think grew up to be a ski instructor instead) everybody still walked out with the standard differential assessment of the two. Of course morality rarely spontaneously materialises out of nowhere and people ultimately believe that aiming to advance one race at the expense of others is intrinsically evil because they are instilled with this message from early on, but all I am saying is that this is the deontological moral package that most people wind up with, and given that package the conclusions that they arrive at are correct in the sense that no amount of additional information about communism or Hitler is likely to change them. If you want to rehabilitate Hitler or throw communist leaders in the pit with him, there is no shortcut around convincing a majority of people to actually change their morality, rather than merely exposing them to some "glossed over" forbidden information.
I don't think this accurately describes our shared common moral sense. If people in a black church take up a collection to send money to hungry children in Zimbabwe, that they could have sent to even hungrier children in Ukraine, then they are advancing their race at the expense of others and few people have a problem with it, and I wouldn't have a problem with it. On a similar note using religion instead of race, if two people were taking up collections, one to aid persecuted Christians in Pakistan and one to aid persecuted Muslims in China, I would preferentially donate to save-the-Christians, and I think that is OK too, and I think it also accords with common sense (and that the push for "effective altruism" defies common sense).
What is wrong in our moral common sense is not advancing your people at the expense of others; it is advancing your people by violating the negative rights of others. Which is what Hitler (and Lenin and Mao) did, of course.
More options
Context Copy link
People rightly intuit that we live in an anti-fascist civilization with WW2 as a founding myth. In that myth, the Soviets are flawed allies but ultimately on the side of good.
For people to reliably recognize all forms of totalitarian socialism as equally evil, we'd have to live in a society that considers virtue as distance from totalitarian socialism, not distance to fascism.
More options
Context Copy link
You're right, I shouldn't have phrased it as "ins and outs" of communism, because it's not a question of not knowing about some event. Many people have knowledge of the shenanigans of Genghis Khan, but they won't have a similar reaction to him as they do to Hitler, even though the scale of his atrocities is comparable, and he doesn't have much of a deontological footing either.
Rather than information, it's about the constant reinforcement of the message that Nazis == Satan, and the Germans are absolutely unrivaled in that. Even some of the nations that were victimized by the Nazis are not so uptight about it. If you stop hammering that message, I doubt Hitler will be seen as any worse than Stalin, which you can even see in the attitudes of people in countries like India.
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
What was Hitler's stated goal, in your view?
The Communists' stated goal was to make a better world by killing everyone who didn't fit into it, a number they generally estimated at ~10% of extant humans.
That is not remotely the goal of Communists. Especially stated. The goal of Communists is to maximize personal freedom and prosperity.
...And of course, these quotations describe the policies Communists actually used when they seized power. The idea that identifiable classes of humans were evil by nature and would need to be exterminated to secure Utopia was explicitly baked into the ideology from the start.
And? Doesn't change what I said or the fact you're objectively wrong. The goal is to help people grow stronger.
Obviously "Communists" are not childish idiots with a terminally naive utopian pacifism. Almost by definition they are self selected from the more hardcore and roughneck of the greater socialist umbrella. They are willing to do what must be done to survive and thrive. But if everyone woke up tomorrow willing to work in peace and be a "Communist," or at least friendly, there would be no need for fighting nor an iota of desire for it - and the overwhelming majority would soon become richer and more prosperous with net utilitarian gains. It's a very prosocial ideology. It's generally right-wing ideologies that are characterized by a desire to mass murder the different.
Like, those 1918 quotes are from a period of straight up revolution and civil war, which they did not start nor desire. The initial Russian coup was fairly bloodless, but certain people weren't having it and were willing to kill and drag the country, if not world, into war and chaos to make sure it didn't happen. Do you oppose law & order, or the right to defend yourself? Do you think people shouldn't commit to war?
Again, and? Do you think there or no evil people in society? Or is this just rank hypocrisy where those you perceive to be evil of course deserve to be suppressed if not eliminated, but when other people do it... And you're wrong, the thing about class is you specifically don't need to exterminate anyone nor is it by inborn nature. This isn't HBD. You can simply cast off the clothes of a class and you'll be fine. The nature of Communism guarantees dignified proper livelihood regardless of your personage, even if you're no longer a 1% elite.
See the case of former emperor Puyi and that one movie The Last Emperor, as a visual example.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Citation?
The early Soviet communists were explicitly pro-terror and against "Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life", but I was under the impression that they were imagining a world where a relatively small amount of terror and murder would be sufficient to make everybody else fall in line. Maybe my recollections are muddled with later leftist movements, but I could swear I recall even early Communism being very pro-equality, to the point of having theories of psychology where people are all basically the same underneath and the fact that some of them eventually want to be evil capitalist oppressors is just because they got an evil capitalist upbringing. Maybe I'm wrong, though - "reeducation camps" were a feature of lots of later strains of Communism but the Gulags didn't really bother to put on such an optimistic "we're trying to fix you for your own good" facade.
Early Communism was indeed very pro-equality, but it also viewed humans as the output of social forces, presumed that bad social forces could make bad humans, and was not shy about advocating that bad humans should be "liquidated". Once Communists gained power, this sort of liquidation was routine wherever they gained power.
I was wondering if maybe your citation would be nutpicking, and worried when I didn't recognize the name, but shame on my ignorance. The "chairman of the Communist International from 1919 to 1926" is a pretty solid reference. Thanks.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think you specifically would've been around last time I had a similar discussion, but Hitler's stated goal was to make the world better for ethnic Germans at no expenses spared for other ethnicities (and with particular vengeance towards some specific ones that he considered their sworn enemies). For better or worse, most people consider such a goal already more evil than the same thing with people selected by socioeconomic status, but that's neglecting that the communists' stated goal as commonly understood does not mandate killing or even displacing any fixed set of people (that's why they ran reeducation camps).
Having to kill capitalists rather than being able to brainwash them all into becoming good workers was presumably seen by most communists (with the exception perhaps of outliers like Cambodia) as a failure and unfortunate compromise with reality. If you conflate "do terrible thing to everyone who doesn't fit in your world" and "do terrible thing to everyone who you can't reform to fit in your world no matter how much you try", then everyone supporting law and order in the US could also be said to want to make a better world by brutally robbing the liberty of everyone who doesn't fit into it, a number that is bounded below at ~0.5% of the US population.
Can you point me (or us) to Hitler's statements on this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link