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 -
Let's discuss democracy, and the decay and potential recovery of two anglo-origin democracies.
South Africa is clearly having a rough time at the moment. Anemic growth, mass joblessness, the spread of slums, ultraviolence on the streets.
The party largely responsible for this the ANC has a declining vote share but still commands the loyalty of a plurality of the electorate. In addition, most of the parties opposing the ANC are not exactly free marketer reformers of the type that might rapidly turn some of these issues around. Since Apartheid ended more than 20 years ago and these trends are deepening, it seems that the decay has not swayed most voters away from the policies that caused the issues.
A friend of mine said that he has full faith in the UK (Great Britain) to recover fully from its current woes, because one day voters will wake up and see that governance is terrible and getting worse, and they will vote for the opposition who will fix things.
Certainly, some of the parties in the Yookay are trying to fix things through structural economic and social reforms (Reform, Restore), but the plurality of voters including young voters favor parties that would either deepen or continue the issues (Greens, Labour, Muslim Indie Bloc)
Note: from the perspective of this poaster the main issues facing the UK are: Low Skill Immigration, Economic Stagnation, Integration of Non-European Migrants, Crime
So I ask the Motte: Do you believe that in anglo origin democracies that enough decay will have voters seek out parties with effective fixes for the issues, or merely cause voters to slowly rebel against the incumbents?
I'm not sure South Africa is the best comparison point or example for "Anglo democracies", given the unique historical factors that drive its current malaise. South Africa's democratic situation is closer to a nation like Japan, where they are essentially a one-party democracy, never deviating even in the face of catastrophe.
Plenty will argue that South Africa represents the likely future for the UK and Canada as they increasingly fracture upon ethnic lines, but there is another anglo country with massive levels of low skill ethnic minorities that is an even closer comparison - the United States. The US, not long after its inception, imported a permanent underclass that still numbers around 15% of the population, and for the past 50 years, they've had a constant influx of illegal immigration. In comparison to the rest of the anglosphere, they have a much lower % of white Europeans. Nonetheless, the US is much, much richer.
While concerns around immigration, integration, and crime are not going to be solved by money alone, South Africa's issues are clearly heavily economic in nature. The breakdown of their society is heavily influenced by the rampant corruption, the collapse of their infrastructure, and, as you say, the anaemic growth and mass joblessness. For the UK, I'd go so far as to say that the combined vote % for Reform, Restore and the Greens would be <10% if they had even kept close to the US over the past 20 years.
Both the US and Apartheid South Africa demonstrate that the economic conditions of a country are largely detached from immigration/demographics. In right-wing UK circles, I see a lot of "cope" around the plans of Reform/Restore, in which the major factor for productivity collapse is entirely low skilled immigration, and once they are kicked out companies will be forced to pay much higher wages. It's an oddly left-wing viewpoint, one in which greedy companies are keeping all the money for themselves, and you just have to force them in order to get that money to the wider public.
The reality is that the UK's pathetic productivity has been decades in the making. Clamping down on immigration levels might collapse Deliveroo and numerous Turkish barbershops, but it will not suddenly unlock hidden growth.
Most of the replies below are skeptical of saving the UK via democracy, because, I assume, they don't think that [Reform will be elected/they will try to cut immigration/they will successfully cut immigration]. I think this is the wrong viewpoint when it comes to decay or recovery. What will push UK towards South African outcomes is their complete failure to build infrastructure. It's the dead cities and towns and villages outside of London. Its the unending growth of the housing market to the exclusion of all else. It's the most expensive business energy rates in the world. And its the wages and jobs that will soon pay less than even the former communist bloc in Eastern Europe, if they exist at all.
There's not a single party that even thinks about these issues. Sure, you can find MPs and advisors that at least understand the economic woes and can propose ideas - like Danny Kruger for Reform - but even Labour and the Tories have some individuals who get it. None of them are at the centre of power, and there is such structural rot that even if they were, it would take a Herculean effort to turn things around.
So no, I don't think the UK is going to recover.
Will it decay? I'm not sure this is the truth either, more like just stagnation. There are a few bright spots for the UK: the brain drain which smashed SA is restricted for the UK. Europe is just as fucked, and so the only escape route is America. But the US has its own immigration issues, and they make it very difficult for the ~top 20-2 percentile to move there. A US that threw open the borders to white Europeans could instantly decimate most of Europe.
More than anything though, I think timescales are long enough that AI is going to render this entire conversation moot, one way or the other
The argument, as expressed by Mark Carney below*, is that cheap labour functions as a good enough solution that doesn't force companies to become more productive and thus able to raise wages for those they do hire (and doesn't force the government to figure out how to create incentives towards this end). Why bother?
I don't know that this is particularly "leftist". It's about as stereotypically leftist as claiming that companies faced with higher goods prices they can't pass on will either shrink the item or stop selling it. The left wing answer (that we saw post-COVID/stimulus) would be to deny that the business' options are limited this way in the first place in the first place, and that the companies are using it as an excuse to be greedy.
It can totally be the rational decision for UK employers until something changes without it being pure greed.
*
To be clear, I don't actually disagree that access to low skilled labour can suppress business investment. It's more the specific idea that this access is the biggest factor in low productivity or wage growth which I find absurd. I would be surprised if was even one of the top 5 most important factors.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link