site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8d ago (text post)   24947 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 9, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've been aware of this phrase for years, mostly from Reddit. Is there a canonical definition, however? I say this with genuine curiosity / bewilderment. Capitalism, to my mind, is an economic condition bounded by certain conditions. I didn't know (and I am dubious) about there being a temporal aspect to it

"Werner Sombart, who used the phrase Spätkapitalismus (literally "late capitalism") in his 1902 work Der moderne Kapitalismus. Sombart was developing a stage-theory of capitalism, arguing that the system passed through distinct historical phases: early, high, and late. His framework was descriptive and evolutionary, not necessarily apocalyptic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism

In the 21st century era of the global Internet, mobile telephones and artificial intelligence, the idea of "late capitalism" is again used in left-wing political discussions about the decadence, degeneration, absurdities and ironies of contemporary business culture, often with the suggestion that capitalism is now getting near the end of its existence (or is already being transformed into a post-capitalism of some sort)

The gist of it is that it's a shibboleth and a cue to boo the outgroup on command.

If there's anything someone dislikes about modern consumerism or globalization, it's a convenient brush to paint with. Gentrification? Late stage capitalism. Rent too damn high? Late stage capitalism. Netflix enshittified its offerings? Late stage capitalism.

The unresolved questions were: "late" in what sense? In comparison to what? How do we know? What could possibly replace capitalism? The liberal economist Paul Krugman stated in 2018 that:

"I've had several interviews lately in which I was asked whether capitalism had reached a dead end, and needed to be replaced with something else. I'm never sure what the interviewers have in mind; neither, I suspect, do they."

Adding this for further context:

The development of capitalism is divided into three stages.[6] The first volume of Der moderne Kapitalismus published in 1902, deals with proto-capitalism, the origins and transition to capitalism from feudalism,[7] and the period he called early capitalism – Frühkapitalismus – which ended before the Industrial Revolution.[8] In his second volume, which he published in 1916, he described the period that began c. 1760, as high capitalism – Hochkapitalismus.[9] The last book, published in 1927, treats conditions in the 20th century. He called this stage late capitalism – Spätkapitalismus, which began with World War I.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Sombart#Middle_career_and_sociology

In somewhat comical fashion, Wikipedia authors examined Sombart himself and drew similar biographical conclusions:

As a young man, Sombart was a socialist who associated with Marxist intellectuals and the German Social Democratic Party. Friedrich Engels praised Sombart's review of the first edition of Marx's Das Kapital Vol. 3 in 1894, and sent him a letter.[9] As a mature academic who became well known for his own sociological writings, Sombart had a sympathetically critical attitude to the ideas of Karl Marx — seeking to criticize, modify and elaborate Marx's insights, while disavowing Marxist doctrinairism and dogmatism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_capitalism#Initial_use_of_the_term

In this regard it serves exactly the same social function as "neoliberalism" once did.

I think it's obvious that the phrase "neoliberalism" was invented in order to differentiate the liberal economic policies as they existed before and after the emergence and implementation of Keynesianism.

I know what the word originally meant. I'm referring to how it is often used by left-leaning pundits e.g. this article in the Guardian which blames neoliberalism for pretty much anything the author doesn't like about the modern world, from environmental devastation to loneliness to anorexia.

Fair enough. My point is that the "neo-" part has a more concrete and agreed-upon definition than the "late-" part.

No argument here.

Not really. Basically there are two neoliberalisms:

  • Alexander Rüsotw's attempt to rejuvenate the classical liberal movement in the wake of the growing popularity of state intervention during the Great Depression
  • The leftists definitionless boogeyman, that anything bad can be attributed to, but which, if anything, has been used to describe the policies following the fall of Keynesianism, not it's emergence.

in his 1902 work Der moderne Kapitalismus

Looks like it only made it into the third volume? So the term is "only" a little over 100 years old now, and the "stage" it purports to describe is only a little over 110 years old.

To be fair, Sombart describes the previous two "stages" as being about 150 years long each, so maybe he wouldn't have thought we're quite due for the end of his last one yet?

I'm never sure what the interviewers have in mind; neither, I suspect, do they.

If you ask for details, the short-term plan usually boils down to some form of palace economy, with the interviewers imagining themselves among the decision-makers inside the (in this case metaphorical) palace rather than among the decision-targets outside. The long-term plan in theory is for their wonderful planning to allow everyone to flourish and thereby become some sort of New Soviet Man, who will simply make correct and selfless decisions himself and thus allow the decision-makers to return back to their labors. In practice for some reason the long-term never seems to come.

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