this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
172 points (100.0% liked)

the_dunk_tank

15915 readers
1 users here now

It's the dunk tank.

This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to [email protected]

Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Essentially the extreme form of liberal ideology that the USA has exported across the world post WW2. The key defining factors are the reduction of social organisation to only two factors, liberty viewed as freedom of private enterprise, and private property. The second key factor that defines this Americanization being the ideological seperation (as the two concepts are in reality inseparable) of economic and political life, in which the free market regulates economic life, and the political life is seperated from it and reduced to voting for a candidate who defines the rules for political life. A low intensity democracy if you will.

Samir Amin later went on to write "The Liberal Virus - Permanent War and the Americanization of the World" to expand on this concept.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

so the 'culturalist' opponents defy something modern and evolutionary, like lgbt rights, on the grounds it is 'americanization/westernization'. and the culturalists in the OP are defending anti-modern things in the guise of opposing westernization.

the problem i identify (and maybe he deals with this beyond the quote), is how we should know what is actually modern. because to return to lgbt rights, the suppression of them in the middle-east dates back to the nascent modernization programmes of states trying desperately to resist european colonialism. the very thing culturalists defend as invioable tradition was itself once the 'evolutionary' force.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It's actually dealt with in the preface/introduction of the book. Firstly culturalism is defined:

In this work, I propose a critique of what can be called "culturalism." I define culturalism as an apparently coherent and holistic theory based on the hypothesis that there are cultural invariants able to persist through and beyond possible transformations in economic, social, and political systems. Cultural specificity, then, becomes the main driving force of inevitably quite different historical trajectories.

Then modernity is critiqued.

Modernity is the product of nascent capitalism and develops in close association with the worldwide expansion of the latter. The specific logic of the fundamental laws that govern the expansion of capitalism leads to a growing l inequality and asymmetry on a global level. The societies at the peripheries are trapped in the impossibility of catching up with and becoming like the societies of the centers, today the triad of the United States, Europe, and Japan. In turn, this distortion affects modernity, as it exists in the capitalist world, so that it assumes a truncated form in the periphery. The culture of capitalism is formed and develops by internalizing the requirements of this asymmetric reality. Universalist claims are systematically combined with culturalist arguments, in this case Eurocentric ones, which invalidate the possible significance of the former.

The crisis of modernity is itself the sign of the obsolescence of the system. Bourgeois ideology, which originally had a universalist ambition, has renounced that ambition and substituted the postmodernist discourse of irreducible "cultural specificities" (in its crude form, the inevitable clash of cultures). As opposed to this discourse, I suggest that we begin with a view of modernity as a still incomplete process, which will only be able to go beyond the mortal crisis it is now undergoing through the reinvention of universal values. This implies the economic, social, and political reconstruction of all societies in the world.

The universalist values (such as LGBT rights) got undermined and invalidated during colonialism, the only way to move forward is a redefinition of universal values from a non eurocentric point of view, not rainbow capitalism/imperialism.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

sicko-lea and now i have made you reproduce & collate the theory for me! MUHAHAHAHAH I WILL NEVER READ A BOOK sicko-lea

cultural invariants able to persist through and beyond possible transformations in economic, social, and political systems

i haven't read it put this way as a negative prescription, but yeah any theory of culture as immutable and not definitionally malleable is riding some mad essentialist/racialist horseshit.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago

By the end of next year an AI language model will probably be able to reconstruct the entire book because I will have quoted it so much lol.