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 -
The United States of America is now at war with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Dozens of Venezuelan military targets have been bombed in the last few minutes, including a major army base just outside the capital. American Chinooks have been seen flying across the Caracas skyline.
This could be the most important geopolitical happening since the Ukraine War. We do it yet know if this will be a limited run of bombing like the Kosovo strikes, or a full on Iraq style invasion and regime change. If it is the latter, it will be an important test of America’s military might, and failure could very well be America’s Suez moment. I have speculated here several times that I thought the US would have difficulty conducting a thunder run of a non-peer or near-peer adversary in its current state, and it looks as though my theory may be put to the test. On a geopolitical and moral level though, I have little sympathy for Venezuela, for the same reason I have little sympathy for Ukraine. If you repeatedly antagonize your neighboring superpower, you get what you get.
This will also no doubt further fracture the Republican base in a major way, as interventionist neocons clash with America-First isolationists.
This is also adds to an intensifying pattern of conflict in multiple theaters that could lead to global war. It also increases the likelihood of a Chinese attack on Taiwan as American asserts are entangled in multiple theaters.
I will post more information as I hear it.
A true gentleman scholar post “inb4 source” and is vindicated in the light of history.
Edit:
There are now multiple airstrikes occurring within Caracas. The United States FAA has issued a NOTAM warning that civilian aircraft should avoid overflying the entire territory of Venezuela.
Reuters is now reporting that there are US ground troops active within the capital of Venezuela.
I am baffled by my ignorance, but
Why?
What has led to this?
Really? You're that surprised? Or is this some sort of Socratic starting the dialog by just asking questions thing.
The USA has been hostile, demonizing (in a propaganda sense), and desperate for hostile state action against Venezuela for like nearly 2 decades now. The USA still has an imperial mindset where they consider South and Central America to be "theirs" in a sphere of influence. And they hate that Chavez was too socialist (by their perception), and failed to either jump or fall over dead when the USA commanded otherwise. The fact the rabbit keeps getting away with it alone seems to have created and Elmer Fudd like target obsession. One might also speculate the Venezuelan success might be a contagion that furthers socialist (really "social democracy") popularity in the Americas and a successful model of defiance of the USA imperial authority. One of the first things Chavez did was create a very close alliance and collaboration with Cuba, a persona non grata by the CIA/USA's standards, for example.
Again, sphere of influence matters. I've seen no indication Venezuela is more socialist than Scandinavia (which is in fact socialist - or at least used to be. But so embarrassingly successful that there has been a fairly successful history rewrite and brainwashing campaign, post 2005 or so, by neoliberal "experts" to convince people it is akshually like super capitalist) but Sweden is not in America's sphere of influence, so it doesn't get as mad and obsessed about regime change. China is definitely out of America's sphere of influence, so the USA's opinion about the fact Xi calls himself a literal Communist, or the fact he is a flagrant dictator that subverted the oligarchy that was going means jack shit. The latter aspect of Xi isn't actually important but Venezuela propaganda always pretends the USA actually cares about democracy so it should be noted to just get a measuring check on what Big Brother says versus what The Party actually does in revealed preferences. Anyway, with Venezuela, it's different, because the USA thinks it has an entitlement to tell them what government they're allowed to have.
Ultimately though: Trump is erratic, and probably mentally feeble from age if not insane. And he's surrounded by weirdo fascists. He just does things. He is flagging in the approval rates disastrously. He has not improved economic standards of living and he's not going to. There is a lot of indication that the party will be severely chastened in the midterms. He might even end up in jail by the end of his presidency, instead of subverting democracy by pulling a Maduro, like he clearly seems to want. At the same time, we still don't know about Trump's full involvement with a hostile foreign state spy (Mossad) that was involved in controlling/blackmailing American elites and politicians, by "raping kids" and general sexual coercive prostitution. He's admirably tried to flood the zone to get the goldfish public to forget his troublesome involvement with that, not think about the implications of it, but it's still not over. He needs a distraction.
So we get a Falklands War situation.
Finally, for the fascists surrounding Trump, the response might be a win win, based on calculated risk and win. A total successful foreign interventionist coup might distract the public with more zone shit. It might impress his base that are otherwise realizing they're miserable with vicarious jingoism "we are strong" vibes. And if "the left" responds with protests, then that just further validates his base which runs on "do whatever the enemy doesn't like" and general hatred/loathing as a political ideology.
Haven't you noticed how badly Trump and his fascist admin wants to provoke domestic chaos/violence, if not ideally "terrorism?" Remember when he was clearly trying to provoke an internal American shooting war by sending armed military to "blue states" with deliberate antagonism and a "go on and try something" mentality? How he would lie about Portland being in total chaos that needed strong statist militarized goons, responding to him, instead of local authorities? Unfortunately neither the locals of the likes of California protesting his brutal ICE policies nor the, let's face it likely low IQ, armed goons themselves took the bait. But this time... maybe? Provoking internal chaos and tribal factionalism could be Trump's ace in the hole to subvert democracy and cancel elections he's going to lose, if not run for a third term. Gotta "save the Republic." He and those around him are increasingly looking cooked otherwise.
Edit: Oh, and I forgot, it really is about oil. It's always at least partly about oil. People hate that it's so black and white. It really is a major factor.
Having actually lived and worked in Sweden, if it's "socialist", I'm not sure how for example Germany would not count. Sure, there are some elements that are fairly socialist - the medical system is nationalised, similar and similarly dysfunctional to the British (that den of pinkos!) NHS; most blatantly perhaps the housing rental market is subject to price controls and a national queueing system for "first-hand" (direct from owner) rentals with exceptions I didn't understand well. On the other hand, my total income tax at something like 30% of raw income was closer to the US than to Germany with its >40%, and unlike DE and most other European countries unemployment insurance is devolved and strictly optional (you have to proactively choose to join an "A-kassa" and pay monthly dues). Petty entrepreneurship, like setting up an LLC, in Sweden is much easier and cheaper, and even as far as medicine is concerned I am not sure Germany's system with pluralistic but mandatory medical insurance with legally mandated almost-indistinguishable services beyond what brand of Javascript rubble you have to navigate on their websites is actually that much more "free-market" than the NHS-like system.
More options
Context Copy link
Okay, I'll bite. Give me your definition of "Fascist".
There is no set definition of Fascist. It's never been rigorously defined (that I know of) by its self described proponents. And yes, it's overused as a snarl/witch accusation. But I think Umberto Eco's Ur Fascism is a good start. Nevertheless I think it's occasionally worth saying, and sometimes points at a real thing. It's a word for a very real phenomenon that happened in the 1920-1950s among certain world leaders. Mussolini just might have been a fascist.
So one definition I'm using here is a fascist is not a standard conservative. Literally Hitler is not von Hindenburg or Helmut Kohl. George Bush II, as much as I hate him, is (probably) not a fascist. Same for most basic bitch Republicans. Trump? I'm not so sure now. Stephen Miller or Steve Bannon? Probably. Peter Thiel, I don't know but I heard yes. Curtis Yarvin? Yes.
Outside of the somewhat vague checklist from Eco, I'd say some of features of fascism are an intense proclivity and desire for fratricide as well as mass massacre of the outgroup. This which fantasizing about mass industrial killing tons of Americans is cosigned by JD Vance. I'm def one of the ones that will end up in neo-Auschwitz for being one of the ill defined "cultural Marxists" by the way, excuse me if I don't have tons of patience for this cute routine (wHaT is FAsCism huh?!) like I should be too stupid to know who my enemies are. Jack Posobiec is one of those actual fascists not just conservatives. Love of plainclothes, secret, and or facially covered police and sham judiciaries are a seeming best hits for the fascist. Andor was a good art depiction of fictional fascism, as a real and distinct thing and if you can't see any parallels by certain real people and their yearnings, well that's on you. You know, the types that are at best nonplussed about sending people to black site torture prisons on spurious charges because they are identified as outgroup, who cares about their suffering, and surely the fact they've been targeted at all means they deserve something, and more.
Fascists are also weird. I don't know how else to say it, they really are and you know it when you see it. Does this look normal to you?. Absorbing scifi and mystics into your supposedly serious political ideology is weird. Himmler, Evola, Mussolini, these are weird or unique dudes, who share a psych profile in one way or another. Thiel, Trump, Moldbug, weird people. Speaking of that last one that wants to mass mulch people that are not him into biodiesel from the all powerful comfort of his blogging and coding chair, doesn't he also want a all powerful corporate neo-"feudalism?"
Maybe that's a little fascist.
But per my original post, fascism is also notably bold, and innovative, in a way. Annexing the sudetenland, the March on Rome, wanting all slavs to be a future slave race for your 1,000 empire, neo-paganism in a very Christian society, industrial death camps for you international race war. They're doing things - out there things. Normal high functioning sociopaths of basic conservatism leaders don't do these kind of things, because they're not normal, even if they wouldn't feel bad about it. Fascists change their society and tradition. So on the question of "why would Trump do this?" "Why would anyone just kidnap a head of state like a common robber, and seemingly not care about the consequence or even comprehend it's not normal?" Well.....
Okay, you did give your definition. Thank you, that's useful.
It's still a little broad: "one definition I'm using here is a fascist is not a standard conservative". What's a standard conservative, by this measure? There's a lot of disagreement on here about 'is that just a liberal, what is a conservative' and so on. But you do at least have a starting point there, so again, you did well there.
The link says he did a cover blurb, but unlike the rest of the article doesn't provide any link to it. Dude, do you not know how the publishing industry generates cover blurbs? They can take a generally negative, critical review of anything and extract two words from it, then slap those (with a copious garnishing of ellipses) on the back as a positive recommendation. Let me see if I can find said blurb and see what it says.
By the bye, I see that book is also described as "NEW YORK TIMES, USA TODAY, and PUBLISHERS WEEKLY NATIONAL BESTSELLER". Wow, the NYT is a fascist publication now? 😁
Okay, here's the Vance blurb:
Honey sweetie boy, I am one of the ones who take badly to that cutesy-poo inconsistent capitalisation trick. If I didn't write it that way, don't attribute it to me. I like your belief in your incipient martyrdom, who says you are going to be important enough to even be noticed by the big bad wolves?
"Oh no they're weird". Well I am shocked to hear a nice, normal, wholesome, down-home family values Mom and Apple Pie cultural Marxist tell me that! Weird, you say? Guess that means I am indeed a fascist, because I am weird too.
Funny you should instance vril, I suppose that makes the entire nation of Britain fascists, seeing as how they drink Bo-Vril 🤣
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah Sweden with their…check notes…20.6% corporate tax rate.
Granted individual income taxes are higher (ie they basically are similar to highest rate in the U.S. if you live in a high tax state)
What do corporate taxes have to do with the definition of communism/socialism?
Can it only be considered communism or socialism if corporate tax rates are above x%?
Collective ownership of property is incompatible with allowing people to retain most of their capital. Granted, if you have restrictions that make it near impossible to choose what to do with their capital, then it could still be commie.
More options
Context Copy link
If you let private corporations accumulate capital without forced redistribution it's not communism or socialism, yes, obviously.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Count me as one of the surprised wanting an ELI5 answer, because this seemed to go from "sinking alleged drug boats" to "we're overthrowing the president" pretty damn fast.
I should run a bingo card on the number of times "fascist" was used here, I'd win bigly!
Ah, the old sweet song! I should add that to the bingo card as well, it's been prognosticated by lefty posters on here going back years by now.
More options
Context Copy link
Sweden is most assuredly not like Venezuela and has been undergoing a steady economic liberalization for decades. That it has single-payer healthcare and a high tax rate is not a refutation of the former. They are in no way “as socialist as Venezuela”.
England: 69 million people, 55 billionaires
France: 66 million people, 52 billionaires
Sweden: 10 million people, 45 billionaires
For the latter, those aren’t oligarchs and cronies. They mostly come from retail (H&M) and tech (Spotify), etc. Please show me the Venezuelan equivalents.
Under Chavez/Maduro, Venezuela nationalized the steel industry (SIDOR), agriculture, banking (including Banco de Venezuela), gold mining, telecommunications, electricity, fertilizer production (e.g., Fertinitro), cement, and transportation. There were agricultural land reforms and redistribution of that land. And more recently food and agribusiness supply chains, supermarkets, construction, and petrochemicals were moved under state control.
Please show me an equivalent wave of nationalizations that occurred in Sweden.
An obvious but clumsy parallel would be perhaps Norway’s Oljefondet and its oil and gas industry. But not being run by a pair of tinpot socialists, they’ve never done anything as retarded as pegging their currency to the price of crude or firing all the petrochemical engineers not sufficiently loyal to the governing party.
The nationalizations happened long ago, and as noted started to privatize in the 90s. These are not the same timelines, so you won't see the same. Sweden used to be more socialized, Venezuela used to be more marketized and started changing more dramatically under Chavez (and the USA freaked out). But the point is they are both mixed economies at this point and not profoundly different. Do you have objective evidence to the contrary? Randomly listing cherry picked set a state owned enterprises (oooh scary) is not a substantive comparison.
I'm just going to list Chinese SOEs because that's easier for me, and I don't think you're willing to call modern China a socialist success story. Though I'll say right now you're right that there would appear to be more state owned enterprises in Venezuela than Sweden.
Here is a gish gallop wiki link of Swedish state enterprises.
I tried asking an AI (Grok) to compare the private versus state aspects of comparative nations on the whole. Because I neither have the skillset nor the will to dig through hard stats myself, especially just for this post. Here's what it spit out, if you're curious:
Image summation if bottom text is annoying
Sweden
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 25-30% of the economy in terms of production and employment, while the private sector dominates the remaining 70-75%.
Venezuela
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) directly accounts for roughly 25-35% of the economy in terms of production and employment, with the private sector handling 65-75%—though much private activity operates under heavy state regulation and informal conditions. Key sectors like oil are almost entirely state-owned.
China
Overall estimate: The state (including public services and SOEs) accounts for roughly 30-40% of the economy in terms of production and value added, while the private sector dominates 60-70%—though private firms often face state influence via regulations, subsidies, and partnerships.
More options
Context Copy link
State control =/= socialism either though
That just sounds like autocracy
Do Venezuelan workers own the means of production? No, they do not
I guess it is true that real socialism has never been tried. (At least by any nation state.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No country with a Bentley dealership can be socialist.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't particularly disagree with you on the foreign policy angle, but if you consider Venezuela a success, how does a failure look like in your mind?
Weird, as a Trump-adjacent """fascist""", I'm pretty sure I want them to leave Venezuala and Iran alone.
I don't consider it a success. I think it's been pretty successfully contained, so shout out to USA foreign policy in competence, be it good or evil. But I think it could have been successful as a contagion in the earlier days of Chavez, which lead to a target obsession.
Well maybe you're unique then. Good for you, at the risk of being cringe, independent thinking is too rare. But really I mean the leaders of the Trump admin, like Stephen Miller, are fascists. I don't think the common fan base of Trump is all "fascist" (which isn't a word that has a strong definition, so what would that mean for the common man?), though some could probably be called that. I do think they are jingoistic even if they pretend to be anti-war, and they will be impressed military muscle flexing.
Gotcha, so all it means is "I/we don't like this guy/these guys" for the modern audience, right?
For a word that doesn't have a strong definition, you were throwing it around pretty freely as though we should all know what a fascist is and does and why that's bad. Almost like you were assuming "the common man" had an idea that fascist is a bad thing to be?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, I'm just genuinely in the dark and asking for explanations by people who know the relevant history. Not even surprised, it's just a big happening and I realize I don't know half a thing about it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link