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 -
Just to provide another perspective, I just recently read this book by Stephen Gowans - an actual tankie - and I thought it provided a reasonable argument for seeing the relationship the other way around, ie. it is really US that is at top of this relationship and Israel its accomplice.
Basically, the argument is that it's not necessary to argue that US relationship to Israel is governed by factors beyond direct US interests. In Gowans' telling, what is important is America's grand strategic vision for Middle East, which revolves around keeping Middle East divided in small states that cannot unite under the aegis of socialist Arab nationalism or another vision, ie. Islam. The biggest danger from American perspective would be an united socialist Arab nation which could nationalize oil production and stop easy Western access relatively inexpensive and guaranteed supply of Middle Eastern oil, not mainly because US needs it, as such, but because it concurrently works as a control factor that keeps Europe on US leash.
For this purpose, America supports whatever forces that can effectively stand against Arab socialism and anti-American Islamism (Iran included), whether that means Gulf monarchs, suitably non-anti-American Islamists, ethnic minorities, secular pro-American dictators - or Israel, a settler-colonialist nation created and fostered through Western influence. Israel is just one part of a general puzzle, albeit a very important one, due to its strategic location and the fact that is interests and Western interests meet quite well.
Thus, it's not necessary to explain the invasion of Iraq with Israeli influence - it's sufficient that Saddam at least came from an Arab-nationalist background and ran a highly nationalized economy (which was swiftly privatized after Iraq invasion). It's not necessary to explain the destabilization of Syria with Israeli influence - it's sufficient that Assad is an Arab nationalist, and even a successful overthrow of his regime is not necessary, destabilization is enough to achieve goals. It's not necessary to explain Nasser's pro-Soviet orientation with Israel - US would have eventually opposed him anyway, as he was an Arab nationalist. The same goes for Gaddafi etc.
I'm not saying that I'm fully buying this thesis, but it's an interesting counterweight.
I have never quite understood this argument. All of those countries need to sell oil in order to finance various state projects (including the all-important state project of ensuring that spoils go to the people whose support the leader needs to stay in power). So, the idea that in any realistic scenario the West will be unable to buy oil doesn't make much sense.
We can see from Russia's actions, right now, that ability to offer access to oil (and gas) to other countries offers a country a lot of potential power to affect things, should it so choose, for whatever reason. The argument is not related to a simplistic "America overthrows countries to get their oil" model, it's related to the idea that America fears that oil-producing countries might use their production ability as a leverage and wishes to have enough influence to perhaps utilize that leverage itself.
It doesn't seem to have helped Russia this time though, even heavily dependent countries like Germany and the baltics haven't taken a soft stance. It works for minor transgressions and concessions, until it doesn't. Then the consumer finds other sources and your own economy is in shambles. It's the "King Cotton" myth.
It's still a major deal in Europe, and is predicted to cause considerable troubles, both regarding the economy and the angry populace. All things told European countries would likely vastly prefer a scenario where Russia has a government that doesn't do things like this to one that does.
It's a double-edged sword. Sure, there will be damage in europe, but the russian economy is also screwed. Using your market power like this is not some "I win" button, it's brinkmanship, you can squeeze some advantage in the beginning, but if you keep pushing, the two cars collide, and not only is your leverage gone, now you also have a serious problem.
But that's not what we were sold. It was "something something, the GDP of Italy, two weeks to flatten the Russian economy". The entire affair is a massive blow to credibility of people who measure economic influence by GDP.
It's way too early to say that. I do think russia will suffer far more than europe from the severing of trade, so you can count me in the gdp camp. I'll grant that some predictions on the deterioration of the russian economy under sanctions (I've heard -50% early on) were exaggerated.
I can agree it's too early to say. If it turns out the winter won't be as bad as everyone says, I'll tip my hat to the the GDPers, but at the moment everyone seems a bit on edge.
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
More options
Context Copy link