Hacker News Reader

Comment by dc-programmer | Hacker News Reader

I think the crux of the current debate is the tension between cultural liberalism and cultural socialism.

The philosophy of the cultural liberals is to remove restrictions that inhibit people from living the social lives they want.

The cultural socialists want to use the power of institutions to distribute a culture across the population. They believe their culture is societally optimal so reducing liberties to propagate it is morally justified.

I’m sure most peoples beliefs lie somewhere in between the two. But the cultural socialism maximalists in the west have been getting louder and louder and it’s beginning to terrify me.

I predict in the next 5 years, womens’ voting rights will be an actual political topic. It will start with “ironic” jokes and “rational” thinking but will get increasingly normalized in discourse.

View on HN

We've already seen Thiel float the "the world would be better if women couldn't vote" thing. Far right communities online already express sanitized versions of this belief system. You can see it when far right women end up in discussion spaces. Their participation is ultimately contingent on the approval of the men they are around, with sexist rejections of their contributions showing up frequently.

We are already at the "ironic" jokes and "rational" thinking phase. Terrifying.

There’s a whole online subculture of women adopting traditional aesthetics and dressing like pilgrims. It’s hard to gauge their sincerity, but they are “converting” to Catholicism and fundamentalist Islam.

Being transgressive is definitely cool for disaffected trust fund kids who didn’t get into Deloitte, but I think there are darker undercurrents like you are implying.

The real irony in all of this is the post-modern and Marxist influences of the movement. Which is hilarious due to the Red Scare level of hysteria reactionaries have about those ideologies.

I think this subculture you've noticed might actually be part of that "Red Scare."

I really don't like the "cultural socialism" phrase. There are too many connotations in it and it's probably too vague for everyone. The way I see it there are really three extremes you can take on any political issue: One is an authoritarian preservation (or restoration) of culture, another is the authoritarian deconstruction (or liberation) of culture, and one is the libertarian position (which is almost moderate by definition; the individual communities are left to figure out what they want.)

The socialists/communists/bolsheviks (and in a more moderate sense, progressives) or in other words "The Left" are near the "authoritarian deconstruction" extreme. Examples of these might be the American progressives trying to take control of children's sexuality away from parents or the people writing laws against the cast system in India.

The Fascists, monarchists, religious fundamentalists, and in a moderate sense conservatives, or in other words "The Right" are near the "authoritarian preservation" extreme. Examples of these include the Taliban, America First etc.

The libertarians/liberals/anarchists are what we already know. Something I don't think people appreciate about them though is that they allow for consensus in some situations where none is achievable. People often confuse them for the Right because of the US's tradition of liberty and because of the freedom of association thing. They confuse them for the left because of how destructive anarchy is.

None of these extremes are ideal. All degenerate into something horrible if you lean hard into any one. It's much easier to understand your own position on any topic along with someone else's because they become a vector of sorts made up of these.

I think you've grouped the two authoritarian extremes under "cultural socialists" and are confused because they're different phenomena (often reactions to each other.)

I’m definitely not scared about a small subculture of Brooklyn art chicks and permanently online disaffected 20 year old woman. I brought it up because monied interests have taken an interest in the aesthetic. The question is, why?

Edit responding to your edit: I 100% agree that any extreme is bad. A society with no restrictions would be anarchy (note mores and peer pressure are means of restriction). But in a democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted. Once the structures of power are changed, it’s almost impossible to reverse. Therefore, I believe it is imperative to call out these ideas for what they are.

Also I disagree that progressives fall in the same bucket as leftists. All leftists are authoritarian leaning but progressives can be liberal or authoritarian.

I don’t think it’s usefully either to endlessly categorize political movements. If you are partial to post-modern thought, you could say categorizing things is a way of exerting power of them. This has clearly been the runbook historically of dismantling the left in America. This is mostly self afflicted due to the tendency of the left to over intellectualize things, but there has been a conscious effort by provocateurs to infiltrate left wing groups and cause discord.

Sorry, I've edited it again (I tend to do that a lot, it's easier than typing everything out only to discover I've used up my post quota for the day.) Liberals are definitely not in the same bucket as leftists, they're arguably just another kind of libertarian.

Democracy is another extreme you don't want. Many people have written about how destructive it can be and should definitely be balanced with something slower (in the past this was an aristocracy/monarchy, in the US and Canada you have the Senate.) I really don't think maximizing democracy should be an objective.

To respond to your edit: This categorization is a pretty old one that comes from the french revolution. I think it makes empathy easier which makes political ideas much easier to communicate and reason about. Precise definitions and catagories (as long as they're consistent) are not oppression, they're necessary for communication.

We reached the max comment depth. I don’t disagree with your points. One point of clarification is that when I say democracy I mean republican or parliamentarian style government.

I sympathize with the critique of democracy. However the failure of more authoritarian systems of governing is and always has been the lack of transparency and trust. In a democratic style of government there’s at least an attempt of oversight. Good luck making a FOIA request to a king or private corporation. Autocrats abuse this flaw to amass power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the population.

Democracy is also inextricably tied to civil liberties. Disenfranchised citizens have less recourse when their civil liberties are attacked

We reached the max comment depth.

No, you didn't. HN will sometimes hide the "reply" link, but you can always reply by clicking the "ago" link.

“obvious troll”

jk, thx for the info

You're welcome!

>democratic society, anti-democratic ideas must be resisted

Are you sure you desire democracy? Because democracy literally means "will of the people" not "will of the elites".

1 (biological) person = 1 vote. Unweighted by wealth. Anything less than that is a kleptocracy or a apartheid state, regardless of what the online obscurists will have you believe

The extremes go far beyond your examples, in both directions. For extremes in the "authoritarian deconstruction" direction, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, would be well-known examples. On the "authoritarian reconstruction" side, we have many cases from fascist regimes to religious theocracies and many other examples. Even a "communist" ideology like North-Korean Juche has many elements involving authoritarian construction of a rather structured culture.

Precisely. I wanted to avoid painting a cartoonish and emotional picture though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com