site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 26, 2022

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.

26
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The way eradication of identity has manifested itself in capitalism is through ESG. It inserts the neomarxist ideas in the profit maximization function. So true they don’t exclude each other, but the eradication of identity does not emerge from capitalist principles.

This is ... really confused, capitalism and capitalists has long had goals other than profit maximization, you can see that in the extensive philanthropy many do (whether explicitly left-wing or initially right-wing). the 'profit maximization function' has had ... components ... you'd call left wing long before 'ESG'. I mean, the civil rights act was decades before ESG, and that's also supposed to be neo-marxism, right?

Also, what on earth does ESG have to do with ... whatever an 'identity' is?

Also, how is 'marxism / leftism erases identity' meaningful at all? I could just as well say 'neo-marxism creates identities - gay, lesbian, black, oppressed, minority, disabled, feminist'. This is actually a common claim, remember "identity politics"?

I could just as well say 'neo-marxism creates identities - gay, lesbian, black, oppressed, minority, disabled, feminist'.

You could, and in the most technical sense it does, but those identities are not legit. Real OG sex/national identities, ethnic deeply cultural of the people identities are true identities. These new manufactured identities are only identities in the same sense a Stalker is a person.

ok. imagine i said the opposite. identity is the most important thing ever, but the real identities are black/gay/trans/woman and the fake ones are french/white/western. how would you argue against this?

Essentially, the term 'identity' has nothing to do with your actual objections. Being gay is an identity in the sense that it's ... something people do, some characteristics, etc. Similarly, being white also is. Each actually refers to many different things. What makes gay/trans bad and french/western good? That's the actual issue here.

I answered netstack and I might as well give you slightly different text. ESG is just a Trojan Horse, it is the vehicle that delivers good and bad ideas but it doesn't care about the ideas. So if a society is heading in a certain direction with laws or even opinions it tries to anticipate that in to making the highest possible profit.

So the comment earlier is that eradication of gender identity end goal Marxism as observed by Leo Strauss in 1960s. And if you look at the "gender studies" today with the likes of Judit Butler and others you find heavy influences by postmodern thinkers who most of them are Marxists thinkers. The specific example is that Butler was influenced by Althusser(a french marxist philosopher), but proving that to someone else would require me to read way more postmodern shit that I have the time or energy for. So I'm just going to assume that Leo Strauss did a good job of thinking the thought to its logical end and I'm taking the trail of crumbs to Butler/Althussers as circumstantial evidence that it was correct. Then you don't have to take my word for it. You can go and read it yourself and I'm ready to be disproved if you have the time and energy for it.

Also, how is 'marxism / leftism erases identity' meaningful at all? I could just as well say 'neo-marxism creates identities - gay, lesbian, black, oppressed, minority, disabled, feminist'. This is actually a common claim, remember "identity politics"?

That is a question that is pondered on New Discources podcast, James Lindsay did a commentary reading of 'An Essay on Liberation' by Marcuse that touched on the end game of it. I don't think I can do fairness to the argument in this comment.

I think you misunderstood my claim - if ESG is a trojan horse, it is trojan horse number twelve million, and the trojans are just the accepted and beloved leaders and owners of your city. The trojan horse is just the horse the king's messenger rides down to your city every three months to hand out edicts, it's not a secret. If the marxists have already - successfully - ""subverted"" you several hundred times (given lindsay's arguments, critical race theory is literally law! since 1964!) - you're not "fighting subversion", you've already lost, and need to stop getting mad at random, small demonstrations of that loss and ineffectively voting and posting about it and actually understand the loss

So the comment earlier is that eradication of gender identity end goal Marxism as observed by Leo Strauss in 1960s

I have no idea what this means, precise language really is useful. If you mean 'eradication of gender identity is the end goal of marxism' ... I'd expect it to be explicitly a stateless, classless society for the many - the poor and tired and beaten down given life anew, wants satisfied, labor used for the laborers, not the exploiters. While communists were generally 'progressive' on gender issues, to call that 'the end goal' of marxism is just wrong.

you're not "fighting subversion", you've already lost, and need to stop getting mad at random, small demonstrations of that loss and ineffectively voting and posting about it and actually understand the loss

I'm not mad. I post and discuss and throw in slightly provocative statements to increase my understanding of issues at hand. The thing that I really want to understand is that how the ideas from the current cultural center of the western world(US) is influencing and distorting the discussions in Sweden where I live. The Motte is the place to test ideas. Maybe I have a bad idea but I'm allowed to test it?

I have no idea what this means, precise language really is useful. If you mean 'eradication of gender identity is the end goal of marxism' ... I'd expect it to be explicitly a stateless, classless society for the many - the poor and tired and beaten down given life anew, wants satisfied, labor used for the laborers, not the exploiters. While communists were generally 'progressive' on gender issues, to call that 'the end goal' of marxism is just wrong.

How do you eradicate class to create classless society? What is class? How do we denote class? If you ever answer like the poststructuralist marxist jammed through that people denote their class through their identity then you eradicate class by allowing anyone becoming what identity they want to become any class they want, and class loses its meaning because identity lacks meaning if you can change it. It is the most succinct way I can put forward the argument.

Is ESG (neo)Marxist? I think that relies on a really wide definition, and that aping social movements for profit is a pretty generic capitalist method.

ESG is the vehicle which propagates ideas good or bad by having the externalities of those ideas go in decision making for corporations. One of those bad ideas is the eradication of gender identity. Much of the basis of ideas of eradication of gender is actual academic scholarship by the likes of Judit Butler influenced by postmodernist thinkers like Althusser who are all out Marxists, so Leo Strauss in the 1960s observed the logical end of the train of thought. Now I'm not about to read a bunch of Butlers shitty prose and read other postmodern thinkers to have definite proof that Leo Strauss was right, it has to be one of my articles of faith. And if you don't believe it, so be it!

Marxism believes that capitalism is a necessary prerequisite to full communism. In that sense, anything capitalism does to destroy tradition is something leftists should welcome with open arms and in fact rush to bring about, even if it means a temporary increase in inequality. Leftist collaboration with corporations is therefore not hypocritical at all.

This doesn't actually rebut the claim that ESG isn't 'neomarxist' - it just says that 'interacting with capitalists isn't anathema to leftism or marxism'