site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31731 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I got this random list of prices (page 8 of the pdf). http://www.numdam.org/item/JSFS_1944__85__7_0.pdf

Which lists prices in francs in 1788, and also says daily salary is 1 franc. So I naturally assumed 1 livre = 1 franc, which is sometimes ("Le terme perdura en tant que synonyme de la livre ") claimed. But if you know more, please share.

Yeah this seems like a reasonable reading of that list. I checked my copy of Hinckler's book again for the discrepancy and yeah it looks like it's my mistake, he was indeed talking about the daily salary in that passage. I must have taken it wrong in my cliffnotes.

Still seems like very expensive prices for bread even given other accounts I've read of the period in general, but I suppose you're not exactly going to get a much worse food situation than right on the cusp of Revolution.

Il semble que ces prix aient été ceux pratiqués pendant à peu près tout le XVIIIeme siècle. (2 lines below, traduction for readers: 'It seems that these prices were those practiced for almost the whole of the 18th century.')

Now I can't guarantee that monsieur de riedmatten in Paris 1944 didn't have an agenda, but that's what he says anyway, if you don't have anything better.

I have no reason to doubt him.

But as you must know Bourbons ruled for about four centuries, and that the Kingdom itself and its feudal institutions lasted for more then thirteen.

A lot can happen in that time. Including major changes in climatic conditions that are bound to effect food prices in agrarian societies.

In some sense none of the factual discussion we're having here is even about the medieval period in the first place.

Wiki's got similar, though slightly more favourable for the ancien regime worker, prices :

Daily wage around 1750-1780: 1.3 livre;

Cost of 1 kg of bread in Paris in 1782: 0.2586 livre;

Cost of 1 kg of bread in Paris in December 2013: €2.58.

Still, if they usually ate bread (and they must have, at least before the introduction of the potato), they were close to starving. (1.3 * 200 * 2200 / 0.2586) / 364 = 6076. It seems very hard to feed, shelter and clothe a family for 6000 kcal of bread per day all-in. No wonder kids had to work. And if economists are to be believed, they were already twice as rich per capita as in the middle ages, so I don’t think the medieval comparison, when they were actually serfs, helps your argument.

I was calculating it before, but I had trouble believing it: they were indeed starving, constantly. This article did essentially the same math.

Two and a half pounds of bread is 3,000 calories, almost exactly the average physiological minimum per head in a family of five. One can assess at one year out of four in the 18th century, and at one year out of five in the 17th, the number of years when this ration was reached. The average deficit for the other years can be evaluated, as we see, at a fraction as high as two-thirds of the needs.

The situation of the average man in the traditional period of mankind, i.e. before 1800, can therefore be summed up as follows: the purchasing power of the working classes depended essentially on the atmospheric situation ; the standard of living per head and per day of a working-class family fluctuating from a maximum of less than two and a half pounds of wheat in the best years, to an extremely low minimum, but which, in the middle of the 18th century, still often lowered below a pound of bread.

I should have figured it out earlier, with Henry IV and the sunday chicken he promised his subjects. Of course, they’d starve if they bought meat. I guess modern man is so insulated from such base concerns he has trouble grasping the concept of hunger.

I certainly won't argue that pre industrial times had plenty and that food insecurity wasn't a big problem. One need only try to live on their own farm produce to figure out how hard (and random) it is. But I'm not going to sign off on this idea you have of people having more food related hardship in the middle ages than right before Revolution.

First of all, and if only for the climatic factors I mentionned, not to mention other big factors like war, grain prices fluctuated a lot in 13 centuries.

All the numbers you quote here are from a specific period at the end of Renaissance where it is well documented that the grain price shot up because of successive years of poor harvest due to harsh winters that are widely cited as one of the main causes of the unrest.

But there are many other mitigating factors that make this analysis not say what you want it to say with any degree of certainty.

Probably the biggest one that I think I hinted at previously is the fact that a lot people simply didn't buy food at all. The price records we're looking at here are for cities, which only had access to agricultural surplus from the countryside. Most of France's food production wasn't even priced in. So modeling one's idea of living in those times from the standpoint of an anachronistic capitalist worker who would use goods traded on efficient public markets to assuage need instead of doing most of the work himself I don't believe to be accurate. Combine that with the lack of reliable records before the eye of the State turned to optimizing production and I'm much more likely to believe qualitative records of how life was back than these back of the envelope calculations.

Imo you’re retreating deeper and deeper into more far-fetched explanations and unknowable information. There is no reason why a tradesman or urban worker would be poorer than a peasant, it doesn’t match our experience, and he could always go back to farming. One of the quotes says the food situation was even worse in the 17th century than in the 18th, which matches with the unprecedented pop growth in the 18th. In light of this hunger equilibrium, I think it is absurd to discuss the “lower tax burden” they “enjoyed”. If it was higher they would have likely starved to death, like a fucked up Laffer’s curve.

The article also mentions, and calculates from, 290 days of work/y. So I don’t understand at all why you believe medieval peasants lead these easy lives. I can always bulverize about romanticizing the past and medievalists’ need to redeem their chosen field of study etc, but it’s not getting me any closer to understanding your perspective.

Can you give me one of those qualitative accounts/anecdotes, because from my perspective the weight of hard evidence is overwhelming. Maybe you have some skeletons that show how well-fed they were, anything. Although the skeleton guys tend to celebrate the bucolic charm of a different age, and attack peasants as underfed and overworked.

Imo you’re retreating deeper and deeper into more far-fetched explanations and unknowable information.

And you're jumping to conclusions based on presentism. None of what I'm telling you here about food surplus is controversial, it's a well documented fact that the people of the country side seldom interacted using money, being paid and paying for things in kind for most of their institutional interactions.

One of the quotes says the food situation was even worse in the 17th century than in the 18th, which matches with the unprecedented pop growth in the 18th.

So are we ever going to talk about the middle ages at any point or are you just going to keep focusing on the worst part of the early modern period so you can take a documented non-central example and make your point that people must have been starving by only looking at a famine?

I too can focus on Mao to say the Communist Chinese were tremendously unsuccessful, but it doesn't really seem very reasonable.

The article also mentions, and calculates from, 290 days of work/y.

As I've explained before, there is heavy debate on this particular issue and that estimate is on the upper side of scholarly works. You can find estimates between 150 and 300.

Consider this excerpt from Shor for the view from the other side. I tend to think it's on the lower end, though not as low as Shor believes.

Can you give me one of those qualitative accounts/anecdotes

Sure, here's one, in 965 English King Edgar had to decree that there only be one alehouse per village because pubs were so extremely popular. You'd think a perpetually starving people wouldn't exactly have enough ressources and time to spare on drink and leisure to fund so many establishments that it actually becomes a problem.

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