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 -
Sure. You not mentioning Hobbes at all, let alone Hlynka's position on Hobbes, is the Hobbesian premise that is being rejected / forgotten.
How I would characterize Hobbes doesn't matter. My position is that you can't properly characterize Hlynka's position if you don't address such a significant part of the position. Which is rather hard to do without mentioning them, which is generally a precondition to accurately characterizing. If you aren't accurately characterizing Hlynka's arguments, there's reason to doubt the validity of your argument.
The lack of mention in your rebuttal-argument is itself the hole.
I of course want to represent Hlynka's arguments as clearly and accurately as possible. I just reread the three "Inferential Distance" posts. The most relevant section seems to be this from the first post:
But this ignores the diversity of views about human nature you find on both the far right and the far left. The dissident right already has an essentially Hobbesian view of human nature, as far as I understand it. And even on the far left, things are not so clear. Followers of the more psychoanalytically-inflected strains of Marxism stress that there can be no final end to history, no ultimate reconciliation of the individual with the collective.
Further quoting Hlynka:
This is straightforwardly false. The dissident right does not believe this.
And finally:
I suspect that what he wanted to say, but shied away from, is that there are ultimately two camps: those who believe in the Christian God, and those who don't. This is undoubtedly the conclusion that one should draw if one starts from Christian priors. But since I reject Christian priors, I unsurprisingly reject the conclusion as well.
As @FCfromSSC explains masterfully, this isn't it. I also agree with him that Hlynkism is compatible with Christianity, but I would like to expand on how the Christian position is in a sense prior to and in a sense more specific. That is, the Christian position goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden; it goes back to man choosing to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Before man could decide "We know how to solve all our problems,", he had to claim the right to determine "Our Problems". Claim the right to determine what is good and evil for himself, thus defining the problems to be solved. Of course, the Christian does not think that the Enlightenment is unique in doing this, and the not-necessarily-Christian claim can be that the Enlightenment is the first time that the entire formulation took hold in widespread fashion.
I would be remiss if I didn't remark that the rationalist perspective is still somewhat reeling from utter failure to conceptualize Our Problems or The Good in a philosophically-coherent way. It's resulted in all sorts of fallbacks, but most commonly, a sort of naive anti-realism. Even this vein still possesses the Enlightenment spirit, though. They hold a moral chauvanism, often paired with a bare appeal to game theory1, as though the only impediment to We being Able To Solve All Our Problems is simply a matter of Strategic Mechanism Design, that if done 'properly' (often involving simply eliminating the Bad Guys (TM)), will vaguely result in Solving All Our Problems. This is, of course, where the Hlynka "multi-agent environment" critique sort of lives, in that you do not get to be the omniscient, omnipotent Mechanism Designer.
1 - As @FCfromSSC puts it:
What I have reiterated over and over in these discussions for a year at this point is that believing in a "master plan" is not a necessary criteria of any of the political ideologies under discussion. You can be a Marxist and still believe that there is no plan, we are not in control of the world, etc. This is basically Zizek's whole schtick, if you listen to his lectures. It basically goes: "Yeah, Marxist revolutionaries at one point did believe that they were impersonal agents of history, simply carrying out what was rationally required, etc. We know now that was a mistake, a failure mode. That's how you get Stalinism. So that's been discredited. But we're still communists, we still believe in the communist project."
But does that make Zizek and his fellow travelers into allies of traditionalists? I don't think the traditionalists would agree. Which means that your belief in a master plan is not what fundamentally determines your political orientation.
It is always frustrating when people are trying to retreat to a social theory motte. Unlike physical mottes, which took many years to physically build, usually in a specific physical location that is focused on a particular geographical feature, right there for all to see with their own eyes, social theory mottes are often built around hiding the ball, burying the underlying premises under overt expressions of having rid themselves of all sorts of things. I have only very casually engaged with Zizek, so I would probably just have to ask you what you think the "Zizekian communist project" still is. What's the there there? What does it actually keep? What's it built on? My initial intuition is that it may take a few rounds of interrogation, but if/when we do discover what remains of it, we can begin to answer your questions, and I have a feeling about how it'll go.
Intentionally left somewhat vague, but my impression from listening to him and his close collaborators is that it’s something like: nationalization of industries, central economic planning, aggressive state action on issues like global warming, workplace democracy and employee co-ops, etc. The sorts of ultra-left economic policies that you’ve heard of before.
There’s still the hope that with enough fumbling about we’ll someday “transcend the social relations of capital”, although everyone has failed at specifying what this means concretely just as much as Marx himself did.
And yes, it could involve the use of revolution too. Although as I’ve already argued, revolution is a tactic that can be utilized or rejected by any ideology.
Yup. Rereading @FCfromSSC's dump of links/quotes, it's kinda hard to see how it doesn't count.
Can you please elaborate?
FC has repeated multiple times that the principle criteria is “we know how to solve all our problems”. Zizek denies that we know how to solve all our problems. But you are claiming that his project still “counts”. Why?
I mean, no? He seems to have a very particular (materialist etc.) social theory for precisely how to engineer our social relations, remaining plenty ignorant about how a contested environment could pose any challenges to the implementation of such a social theory. As FC put it, this certainly reads like "subjugating people wholesale" as "a form of manipulation by social institutions". That he has replaced "revolution" with "???" in his master social plan to solve all our problems is more like retreating from the outlying harassment defense posts to the main wall than even retreating all the way to the motte.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link