site banner
ZorbaTHut  2yr ago (text post)   45539 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

106
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is just Jordan Peterson's idea of what Marxism is, based, apparently, on reading a political pamphlet. Marxism is a critique of political economy, or an analysis of capitalism. One of the intermediate conclusions is indeed that capitalism requires a class division (or, that it is constituted in a social division of ownership). Further conclusions are that this actually limits productive capacity for example, and should be abandoned for the sake of scientific planning of the economy.

This is of course wrong, I'm just pointing out that wrongly interpreting a relatively small part of his ideas, abstracting it away from its foundamentally economic context into a completely generic "oppressor-oppressed" framework, is intellectually lazy and plain wrong. It is wrong because the moralistic dimension is unimportant to the actual intellectual content, and this approach is what set Marx apart from the myriad of other socialists at the time or before him.

Feel free to disagree with the idea, but I don't see any honest way to blame it on Peterson. We have several published writings of people calling themselves Cultural Marxists, which explain that this is what Cultural Marxism is, and predate Peterson by decades.

Ok instead of substantiative criticism, which 'function' gave and seemed to ... slide right off, let's try rhetorical criticism

We have several published writings of people calling themselves Cultural Marxists, which explain that this is what Cultural Marxism is, and predate Peterson by decades

Imagine you're debating with a leftist. You - just as an example, no political analogy intended - assert something like 'conservatives are committed to equality in practice. and it's leftists who, despite their progressive religion, take action to harm equality at all times'. Your interlocutor says: "Many leftists took up the cause of equality long before conservatives did, predating them by centuries. Conservatives, indeed, fought equality tooth and nail, and conservative intellectual heroes were against equality - and they were the first to call themselves conservatives. Today's conservatives call themselves pro-equality, but it's all a facade".

Now, this may be true. Or it may not be. But - if you're reading this ... what can you conclude from it? Why can you believe it? Where is the evidence? The interlocutor is speaking to a conservative, who certainly believes conservatives are pro-"true equality, equality of opportunity" - and they are, at least at the moment - so they'll hear it, think "oh, but all the cons I know love equality", get mad, and move on. Instead - what are the names of those intellectuals, where can I read more about them, even by googling them? Maybe pull some excerpts from their wikipedia article? That'd be much more convincing - if you're arguing against someone who's lazy, you make sure they see the proof - and if they didn't know, it'll show that to them, viscerally. But that argument, or yours, can't actually convince anyone, because there's so little being said. Which authors who called themselves "cultural marxists"? Presumably you have specific authors in mind ... it'd have taken 5 seconds to write their names, and turn this from a bland statement to a statement of fact that's both researchable and contestable.

Now, this may be true. Or it may not be. But - if you're reading this ... what can you conclude from it? Why can you believe it? Where is the evidence? The interlocutor is speaking to a conservative, who certainly believes conservatives are pro-"true equality, equality of opportunity" - and they are, at least at the moment - so they'll hear it, think "oh, but all the cons I know love equality", get mad, and move on. Instead - what are the names of those intellectuals, where can I read more about them, even by googling them?

I have nothing against someone asking for a source, but please, drop the school teacher act, especially if your issues with me apply the same to the person I'm responding to.

Maybe pull some excerpts from their wikipedia article?

Happy to oblige:

Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.[1] An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, Cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity;[1] are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact 'ideological'.

(...)

That'd be much more convincing - if you're arguing against someone who's lazy, you make sure they see the proof - and if they didn't know, it'll show that to them, viscerally.

I've seen a lot of these sort of conversations, it doesn't work like that. Half the time what happens is they stop responding, and when the topic comes up again in the future, the conversation just resets.

So, your original statement was that "racism = prejudice + power" is "cultural marxism" because cultural marxism is "the idea that we live in an exploitative system, where people are divided into classes, one designated the oppressor, and the other the oppressed."

My claim was that the latter statement was extremely broad, and is held in various forms by many historical and present groups unrelated to marxism.

Cultural Marxism refers to a school or offshoot of Marxism that conceives of culture as central to the legitimation of oppression, in addition to the economic factors that Karl Marx emphasized.[1] An outgrowth of Western Marxism (especially Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School) and finding popularity in the 1960s as cultural studies, Cultural Marxism argues that what appear as traditional cultural phenomena intrinsic to Western society, for instance the drive for individual acquisition associated with capitalism, nationalism, the nuclear family, gender roles, race and other forms of cultural identity;[1] are historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy. Cultural Marxists use Marxist methods (historical research, the identification of economic interest, the study of the mutually conditioning relations between parts of a social order) to try to understand the complexity of power in contemporary society and to make it possible to criticise what, cultural Marxists propose, appears natural but is in fact 'ideological'.

That's from your article. You'll notice that this doesn't directly mention 'enemy classes' at all. Clearly this phenomena - the cultural/social turn, the new left, frankfurt school, critical theory - are related in some ways to the modern left, wokes, progressives. Although it is worth noting they are correct about many things in some ways - things you might call right wing - they criticize the role of money and big business in perverting culture, popular media and music as a tool by those with power, alienation, the facileness of consumerism. But the ideas in the above paragraph are very different from a simple idea of 'enemy classes, not just economically. And they share similarities to the 'all girls can do what boys can', don't they - socially conditioned traits, gender roles, opposing hierarchy, and crucially liberation from oppression and restriction all things they have in common with "Races r the same", "girl can do what boy can do". Aside from the veneer of "lets all agree" vs "i very disagree", it's the same thing - universalism, progressivism, liberating the oppressed, etc.

So, your original statement was that "racism = prejudice + power" is "cultural marxism" because cultural marxism is "the idea that we live in an exploitative system, where people are divided into classes, one designated the oppressor, and the other the oppressed."

Your original question was "what was specifically Marxist about class conflict" and that was the answer.

My claim was that the latter statement was extremely broad, and is held in various forms by many historical and present groups unrelated to marxism.

It's not extremely broad. There just aren't that many groups analyzing social relations through the lens of oppressor and oppressed classes. I'm pretty sure you will have a hard time finding a framework that does so, which is not descended from Marxism.

You'll notice that this doesn't directly mention 'enemy classes' at all.

In plain language, what do you think this means:

We are, in Marx's terms, "an ensemble of social relations" and we live our lives at the core of the intersection of a number of unequal social relations based on hierarchically interrelated structures which, together, define the historical specificity of the capitalist modes of production and reproduction and underlay their observable manifestations.

You already claimed that what I said is extremely broad, even though it's very easy to follow. How would you react if I quoted this instead?

Although it is worth noting they are correct about many things in some ways

Why does the concern about statements being extremely broad, and is held in various forms by many historical and present groups unrelated to marxism, vanish when you happen to agree with them?

Aside from the veneer of "lets all agree" vs "i very disagree", it's the same thing - universalism, progressivism, liberating the oppressed, etc.

False. "I have a dream" and "girl can do what boy can do" allow racism and sexism to go both ways, while "patriarchy" and "racism = prejudice + power" hold only one group can be racist and/or sexist.

I'm blaming Peterson for popularizing a very shallow reading of Marx, not the concept of cultural Marxism.

Why blame him instead of the Cultural Marxists themselves?

... blame the cultural marxists for peterson popularizing a shallow reading of marx? huh?

He wouldn't popularize their reading of Marx, if they didn't read him this way.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats