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 -
As a linguist, this is one of the best examples of linguistic drift I've ever read.
The 1800s communists and bourgeois would have obviously disagreed with this sentence (because communism was about stripping the bourgeois of their power and giving it to the working class).
But you're not using these terms how Marx and his contemporaries used them. The way I'm reading you is that: the bourgeois is idealized by the DINK couple who works an email job and got a degree in "gender-studies"; communism may-or-may-not be the traditional purely economic theory, but it likely has incorporated a lot of generic social leftism (that we would expect to be taught in a gender-studies program).
Is it really "drift" though?
Even in the 1800s, communism tended to be more popular amongst students, intellectuals, and the idle rich than it was amongst farmers and factory workers.
Lenin (yes that Lenin) laments this in his own writing and cites it as one of the reasons that a vanguard party is neccesary. You see, the problem with giving power directly to the working class is that they will use it to persue thier own interests rather than those of the revolution. The implications of the interests of the proletariat differing from those of the revolution appearing to have been either lost upon or intentionally side-stepped by Lenin and subsequent communist thinkers.
More options
Context Copy link
Incorrect, I am using these terms in the same ways Marx and communists in general originally used them. I am however saying something that communists sought to hide about themselves for tactical reasons.
Marx and Engels themselves were of bourgeois extraction (the latter the son of a wealthy factory owner, no less), and most of the original communist intelligentsia were too. Communist social theory seeks to abolish such class distinctions through a unification of all of society into a classless whole. It isn't inherently against the bourgeoisie (Marx himself says as much).
However, Marx saw the victimisation of the proletariat as a powerful force ready to be captured, which is why he and his contemporaries designed polemics against bourgeois rule (really capitalist rule) because they thought that a proletarian revolt would be the best vehicle for their revolutionary social engineering project.
However however, Marx's original predictions that the proletariat would be amenable to his revolution has proven false, and thus communists have had to seek different strategies, most famously abandoning the capture of economic classes for socio-cultural minority causes. But the original verbiage has stuck and become contradictory.
Your typical gender-studies student attacking "the bourgeoisie" which she ostensibly belongs to is engaging in an ancient lie devised for a defunct political stratagem. Meanings change, symbols don't.
In all this, a neutral observer of communism will notice a pattern emerging of a revolutionary vanguard made of educated bourgeois counter-elites that is looking for a popular coalition to drive against their internal class enemies. And this makes communism, in a bout of irony that would have immediately sent me to the worst of gulags, a bourgeois ideology. Perhaps the most bourgeois ideology. One would have to argue whether it is more or less characteristic than Liberalism, its progenitor, but that's a whole different can of worms.
Interestingly, the points I'm making were at one time part of Soviet politics, Bukharin and the NEP supporting "right" were really supporters of the peasantry against the cities whose more influential urbanite population is quite literally what the term originally designates.
You're right that there's a lot to say about the linguistic drift of the term, but it went the other way around of what you're thinking. Marx's politics made the term for urbanite (bourg literally meaning city) which he used into a political category and epithet. In moving to designate email-job "coastal elites", it is merely returning home.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link