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 -
"one core reason Marxist movements will always fail"
Strange that failure of IRL Marxism (after brilliant success after success that culminated in Marxist governments controlling one third of human race) had nothing to do with this "core reason".
No one opponent of Marxism, whether outside or inside Marxist states, ever cited lack of sex as reason why Marxism is wrong.
Yes, Marxism has multiple "core" reasons for failure; it's probably reasonable at a certain point to just call them reasons.
Still: can you imagine any factors that muddy the link between "X is a reason that Marxism fails" and "X is reported as a reason that Marxism fails"?
For example: can you imagine a social incentive against saying "I oppose X because it leads to me having less sex?"
I don't think the lack of explicitly reporting a particular reason is good evidence the the reason wasn't important.
But people being "entitled to reproduce" was never an actual issue in Marxist societies?
It's not clear to me how that connects to my comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Its not lack of sex, its the basic impossibility of economic calculation when society reaches a certain level of complexity.
The problem is, the distribution of sex is intractable at EVERY level above, maybe, the village, without some distributed coordination method.
Go look at various attempts at forming small scale communes and see how many of those failed because one guy started hogging all the women despite the representation that it was all about free love and equality. Okay, its also because all the labor ultimately fell on the men, or a small subset of them, they can't even get the distribution of LABOR right in these cases.
Ironically, you're thinking too big. Not every "Marxist movement" is the Soviet Union.
Oh, and just a note guess what China has to start cracking down on in the name of Marxism.
Because even under Marxism with Chinese characteristics, you can't make women WANT to settle for just any dude.
This issue is even more present in hyper-capitalist Korea and Japan it doesn't have anything to do with Marxism. It has to do with Asian family social structures being traditional while the economic structure has become more egalitarian along with small family size. Women don't want to get married because they are expected to work, take care of the house hold, take care of the children, take care of her husbands parents and take care of her parents. It's gotten to where Asian families are attempting to unload the entire social burden of an extended family onto one 28 year old woman it's not sustainable and is a big part of the collapse of birthrates and marriage in these societies.
China under Mao didn't have these problems. Many other more horrific ones but not these ones.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link