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 -
You know who this Moulay Ismail reminds me of? Joseph Stalin. Your apology reads exactly like Stalinist apology. Order and security, relative stability, building monumental structures all over the country, being respected by the leaders of other superpowers... Did Moroccan peasants actually enjoy his rule, or did his tight control over the country result in their successful overexploitation to fuel his war or construction efforts?
The difference is that Russia under Stalin was still so poor that by the early 50s East Germany, which had been totally destroyed by the war and had its most valuable surviving industrial equipment shipped wholesale to Russia as war loot, was already the richest country in the Eastern Bloc merely because of the legacy of industrial capitalism from the pre-communist era. Stalin oversaw famines and starvation, threw mountains of men at Hitler in a series of severe strategic blunders, and failed by 1953 to ensure a standard of living even close to a western capitalist country, or indeed what a Russia that had remained capitalist after 1917 might have reasonably achieved.
If Stalin’s Russia in 1953 was as wealthy as France (by median household income, say), very few in history would consider him a bad leader and - of course - the trajectory of socialist economics would likely be very different.
That's a generic boo outgrop. Stalin had just about 2x more men at his disposal, overall losses are about 1.5 Soviet soldier of 1 killed German soldier.
More options
Context Copy link
Perhaps the difference is that Stalin acted in a technological society (in relation to the 18th century), in which much was invested in the capital and human development, because they are the main determinants of economic fortune; wars are destructive in this environment, even for the winner. Moulay Ismail, on the other hand, acted in pre-modern agarian society, where the land is a key economic contribution, and the war of conquest is quickly profitable, even if the peasants are killed - it has not undergone a demographic transformation, so the population is quickly recovering.
More options
Context Copy link
If you or others are interested, the blogger Nintil did a cool deep dive into the claims for vs against economic growth under Stalin. The tl;dr is that Stalin probably achieved more industrialization than Czarist Russia would have if it continued on its present path (which it's worth remembering was basically Import Substitute Industrialization and probably would have pewtered out). Stalinism still achieved less than a counterfactual Czarist Russia likely could have achieved if they had genuinely liberalized, but who knows if they would have done that.
This is leaving aside of course the cost of human suffering, which would have made the system not worth it either way.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link