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 -
This is about layoffs in tech and what they underscore about modern economy.
https://blog.interviewing.io/how-much-have-2022-layoffs-affected-engineers-vs-other-departments-we-dug-into-the-data-to-find-out/
This passage feels obvious. Of course companies will let go those employees first who contribute little to the bottom line. Of course companies will hold onto their critical resources--engineers and salespeople in this case--until the very worst moment.
But underneath this is a statement about how many bullshit jobs are there in our economy. Jobs that are merely simple busywork. Jobs that exist solely as a way to redistribute the fruits of capitalism from those who have found a way to way to produce for society and those who didn't. It's basically a giant social contract about providing for a rather large part of society that would not otherwise be able to sustain itself.
If anything, this speaks of how deep our humanism runs. Instead of sawing off the sickly branch, we embrace it with care, doing so in a way that doesn't over-infringe on the patient's dignity (Consider how powerful a mark of status it is to provide for the weak and poor--now this status-marker has been democratized).
Thus we learn something practical: don't take anything HR says or does too seriously. They play an unpopular, minor role in the fabric of a company, relegated to the equivalent of keeping the litter box clean: ensuring legal compliance, tackling on/off-boarding paperwork, and organizing company celebrations. That, and be wary of HR departments that seem to outgrow their function. A fat, active HR department is a sign that a company isn't allocating its funds efficiently. Or that it usurps power from more important departments, eg. the power to design and run the hiring process (they should only take care of the mechanical parts; the candidate qualification process should be in the hands of subject-matter experts). Either way, it's a bad sign.
Excellent post, I'd also throw in that this is the original purpose of the idea of the Professional and Managerial Class as a distinct entity from the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat. The classical Marxian model of Bourgeoisie (the ownership class, or those who Hobsbawm defined in his history of the 19th century as "Anyone who employed another person") and the Proletariat (workers, the rest, who make their money from their own labor) seemed increasingly out of date when corporations seem to run not in the interests of "capital" ownership but in the interests of the managers.
I think the bourgeoisie allow - or are forced to allow via threat of regulation - some say into events by managers but I think that's a far cry from the argument that managers have actually wrested control.
At worst imo they are forced into the situation that Roman emperors found themselves in after coopting Christianity: powerful enough church leaders can compel or give Roman officials (even the Emperor) pause or even force them to change tack. They had to play along with the new ideology and couldn't just write it off.
But the bulk of the power remained with the Roman Emperor, especially if he was strong.
I feel the same way about capitalist today, especially in fields that don't get caught up as much in the culture war. We can all point to endless rampages by lunatics in colleges or progressive non-profits or businesses that depend on constant PR (film, fashion). I'm not sure that the situation is the same in the oil business or whatever.
Who are the bourgeoisie in your view? In the 19th century when Marx is writing (and that hobsbawm is writing about) there were individuals who owned companies, factories, ships, farms. Today the big players are pension funds and other wealth managers.
Musk, Bezos, and Gates combined barely eclipse Calpers alone. Blackrock has ten Trillion under management. The fund managers have many times the power of the owners.
I'd give the historical parallel not of the late Roman empire but of late Merovingian France. The Roi FaiNeant era, out of which emerged powerful subordinates like Charles Martel, who would slowly seize power in their own names. Or the emergence of Japanese Shogun.
I actually was thinking of the stereotypical business owner/industrialist. In terms of managers I was speaking more of middle managers and the HR types.
I take your point though that the first is outdated and I think I just misread how others were using the second.
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