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 -
So are we no longer blaming Marx and his successors for these problems? Just want to clarify, it seems like that's a sticking point for many people who agree with you. I'm totally down for that, it would make for a refreshing change, anyways.
And when the inevitable slide into "only a select few men get the right to control society" happens, how confident are you that they won't just fuck you over anyways? Or are you banking on the equivalent of being on the central planning committee?
That's what many others have said. But I get the feeling that you, like them, won't be around when the problems come up again and we start looking for answers and apologies.
Well blaming the Enlightenment rather, but communism is just liberalism that's unhappy that heaven on earth hasn't been brought fast enough. So really it's just degrees of guilt.
You are currently being fucked over by an organized minority, you were fucked over by an organized minority in the past, and you will be fucked over by an organized minority in the future. Humanity has never known any other system and it's dubious that an alternative is even possible given the nature of political relationships.
What your question really is, when properly translated, is "how will the new elite adhere to the myths that cemented the power of the old elite's political formula?" well it will not, because it will have different myths for a different political formula.
If I am, then the best option for everyone would probably be the system most open to anyone getting power. I can join the current political elite with effort, I wouldn't be able to join the OP's without so much effort as to render my life pointless.
It's hardly a myth that suffrage was not the default state of all men. The ultimate goal of the OP is to argue that we are better off restricting some people from having political power. But why stop at sex? There are many men who are incapable of being good rulers as well, equally responsible for supporting the "social pathologies" listed in the OP. So what's going to stop the reversion to an oligarchy or monarchy? Because there's always going to be some argument over who counts as virtuous or not.
"This far and no further!" sounds nice, but a man can no more control the slippery slope than he can command the tides to recede.
Congratulations, you are now a proponent of warlordism and a fierce opponent of liberal democracy. Or perhaps you misunderstand the types of regime that make power most accessible.
You can do that in any regime, and if you can't that means it's not long for this world. I suspect that OP's patriarchy, like all patriarchies, would have a nontrivial contingent of female elites, nominally recognized or not.
Quite so, but it is a myth that insofar as it is the default state of all men, it matters in the slightest to the political object.
The idea of vote as a matter of importance, a natural right, a lynchpin of your power over your masters and the righteousness of their establishment. All mythology. Mythology on the same level of absurdity as the divine right of kings, I might add.
Arguably of an even worse caliber since, as De Jouvenel points out, its potency has managed to summon levels of control and tyranny undreamt by any king.
You don't elect representatives friend, representatives have themselves elected by you.
Indeed, why have the pretense of suffrage at all, why even acknowledge the rituals of a previous political class? Nay, let's have new rituals instead. Tis always so.
You might as well ask a Bolshevik whether they'd stop at taking the property of the Tsar. Or indeed a democrat whether they'll
Indeed, and by the cruel mercy of God, the many never rule the few.
Nothing, except that the latter doesn't exist and the former is the only regime that has ever existed.
Quite and this is why naive conservatism is a futile position. However build a new sand castle upon the ruins wrought by the tide, that he can. In fact that's probably the only thing that can ever be done, in a sense.
No? Warlords don't allow people to obtain power, they would work to ensure that theirs was the only one.
In contrast, Apple cannot prevent Google from releasing phones and trying to break Apple's share of the smartphone market. This is a consequence of our decidedly not-warlord society.
Under a feudal system, my right to weapons that can easily threaten people would probably be taken away to ensure the power of the rulers. There's a reason people say that Sam Colt made men equal. Despite this, feudalism lasted quite a while.
How so? Nothing stops me from, in theory, running a popular candidate who isn't part of the dominant clique and unseating the existing representative.
You're banking on coin flips as to who is going to be on top. Let's hope you're good at predicting the outcomes of those flips.
Or, you know, we could just...not. Like, as much value there is to be had in demolishing a society to rebuild it in your own image, the constant fights over precisely this are wasteful and disastrous. There's an existing system under which you can get away with a great deal. The grander your expectations, the more effort you require, but that's how it's always been, yes?
Warlords and their clique are people, are they not? Sure they seek to monopolize, but that is the nature of power. Power is never shared. And in a national democratic system it is not either, and the ruling elite is smaller than the combined cliques of a dozen warlord provinces.
All that it means is that they fought and lost. Because they are not sovereign, and don't actually decide who is allowed to make smartphones. Yet they still do so under the authorization of somebody. If USG decided to hand a monopoly to Apple, they could have, but they did not because corporate power is a castle that has to be maintained in constant flux so as to not compete with the castles of the managerial sovereigns. They very well might have handed such an honor if Apple was significantly more willing to play ball with surveillance than Google.
Then you're not an elite. The feudal system had quite a lot of men-at-arms and knighthoods for specific kinds of expertise. Yes the ruling elite has the power to exclude you if they consider you too dangerous, however unwise it is to do so. They hold this power in any regime.
Ask Trump how he feels about it.
And yet everything does stop you, in practice. Because the myth that you are told about how democracy works is not the practical reality. Without large amounts of support from existing institutions or alternate ones, competition is impossible.
Consider all these studies that have been made that show that the will of constituants has insignificant influence on a politician's conduct in office compared to the will of his donors. Consider how deeply unpopular politicians still remain part of a system that should exclude them if it worked they way you think. Consider again, how most of the levers of power are not actually in the hands of any elected body but within an entrenched administration that only answers to the politicians in theory.
Even if you did manage to get elected in a fluke, you'd still hold no power. Because just because it says people should do your bidding on paper doesn't mean jack shit. I point yet again to Trump and his generals who should really be in prison for disobeying his direct legal orders if the system worked anything close to the way you think. But it doesn't.
I am not. The few ruling the many is a sociological law of the universe that has never been broken. It is true even in a mob.
I did not say that I would like the few in question, or that replacing fews that I don't like wasn't risky. But you either convince them to give you what you want or forcibly replace them with more amenable people, there is no third way.
The current elite is so deeply incompetent and unable to integrate the people who would vouge for my preferred agenda that confrontation is inevitable. Most of the very reasonable things that I and a lot of others want are impossible without a coup and secession has been made deeply illegal. In this situation there is no choice.
The point is that under liberal democracy, there are different freedoms and powers one has/can get that, in my view, stack up to favor it over warlordism.
Politicians vote how they want on issues that society doesn't consider salient. If it's very visible and watched over, they vote how their constituents want. They also work to help their own supporters with working with the government. This is broadly known by everyone, no myths required.
What exactly are you asking for that is "very reasonable", and by whose standard?
And I think those are fictitious and mythical because in practice there never is or was anything such as the separation of powers.
Right, and what "society considers salient" magically always coincides with what the ruling class actually wants and what the media they control decide to talk about. Funny that.
I think considering democracy to be a system of justification rather than decision requires far less complexity to explain the behavior of its systems. But it is of course not compatible with believing in it being in any way special.
Abolishing censorship, public order being restored, the death penalty for serious crimes, the promotion of traditional family values, national sovereignty, reducing immigration to culturally manageable levels, having the economy reward the production of real goods instead of financial products.
The standard would be history I suppose. But these are all things most people in most countries want anyways in you ask them. It's not what the elite believe in however, and they can't be convinced to allow it because the underlying problems are load bearing for their power or the justification thereof, which is what really matters.
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