There's a theory that asserts that the logical conclusion of social justice is cultural version of Marxism that ends up merging with its economic counterpart.
Thread unpacking this theory 👇
Thread unpacking this theory 👇
Zooming out:
The introduction of capitalism was a big deal.
It reoriented who became high status (e.g. merchants) & who didn't (e.g. intellectuals)
Those who lost status became resentful.
Socialism catered to that resentment by promising status back to the low-status.
The introduction of capitalism was a big deal.
It reoriented who became high status (e.g. merchants) & who didn't (e.g. intellectuals)
Those who lost status became resentful.
Socialism catered to that resentment by promising status back to the low-status.
Remember: What people care most about is status:
Christianity promised the meek that they'd go to heaven unlike rich people.
But socialism was promising the goods here on Earth.
Which is why it became so popular.
Christianity promised the meek that they'd go to heaven unlike rich people.
But socialism was promising the goods here on Earth.
Which is why it became so popular.
It's also highly effective, b/c it attracts ppl who are loyal.
Say what you want about how horrific communism is (& it is!), but it breeds loyalty. USSR was loyal. China is loyal.
Rich people aren't loyal. They have too many good options.
You're only as loyal as your options.
Say what you want about how horrific communism is (& it is!), but it breeds loyalty. USSR was loyal. China is loyal.
Rich people aren't loyal. They have too many good options.
You're only as loyal as your options.
Socialism didn't work in the west, b/c ppl got too rich.
More specifically, ppl believed in The American Dream, that they too could get rich if they worked hard & had talent.
From a Status calculus POV, it made more sense to believe in capitalism than socialism.
But today?
More specifically, ppl believed in The American Dream, that they too could get rich if they worked hard & had talent.
From a Status calculus POV, it made more sense to believe in capitalism than socialism.
But today?
This is why economic growth is so important.
When we're not growing, the world becomes zero-sum.
There's a winner for every loser, & ppl focus on capturing their piece of the pie instead of collectively expanding it.
Low growth presents ripe conditions for Marxism.
Like now?
When we're not growing, the world becomes zero-sum.
There's a winner for every loser, & ppl focus on capturing their piece of the pie instead of collectively expanding it.
Low growth presents ripe conditions for Marxism.
Like now?
Remember, politics is similar to economics. It's about capturing as much power as possible
In economics, you do that by giving customers what they want
In politics, you do that by giving voters what you want
What do lower status ppl want? Higher status
In economics, you do that by giving customers what they want
In politics, you do that by giving voters what you want
What do lower status ppl want? Higher status
Which is why Marxism is a highly effective strategy, especially when people aren't getting rich.
Elections are won by majorities.
What politicians do is say to lower status people: vote for us, and we'll give you high status.
Don't vote for us, and you'll remain low status.
Elections are won by majorities.
What politicians do is say to lower status people: vote for us, and we'll give you high status.
Don't vote for us, and you'll remain low status.
They don't even have to deliver on their promises.
They're inherently against the establishment, they can just keep blaming the establishment for the lack of change
Being unreasonable gets you more loyal followers than being reasonable, b/c reasonable people have more options.
They're inherently against the establishment, they can just keep blaming the establishment for the lack of change
Being unreasonable gets you more loyal followers than being reasonable, b/c reasonable people have more options.
So what's Cultural Marxism?
Economic Marxism didn't work b/c social class isn't a strong enough identifier. Once you get rich, you stop being loyal. And ppl wanna be rich
Also, capitalism provided a counter vision
So overtime, ppl saw how rich the west was getting & lost faith
Economic Marxism didn't work b/c social class isn't a strong enough identifier. Once you get rich, you stop being loyal. And ppl wanna be rich
Also, capitalism provided a counter vision
So overtime, ppl saw how rich the west was getting & lost faith
What's a better identifier? Well, identity. What you can't change: Gender, race, etc.
Those are identifiers on which people will always be loyal.
And so there's a huge opportunity to capture votes by appealing to those axes.
Even when they get wealthy, they'll always be loyal.
Those are identifiers on which people will always be loyal.
And so there's a huge opportunity to capture votes by appealing to those axes.
Even when they get wealthy, they'll always be loyal.
What they did was stick to the structure: promise high status to lower status people.
But they changed the content, adapted to the new era
Now people weren't poor b/c class warfare, it was because of oppression
It spread wildly. Its foil is capitalism:
But they changed the content, adapted to the new era
Now people weren't poor b/c class warfare, it was because of oppression
It spread wildly. Its foil is capitalism:
Communism lost partly b/c there was an attractive alternative in the west.
At some point Soviet communism became lower status than American capitalism.
Cultural Marxism has no such alternative to point to, so it's hard to switch.
It's is the highest status system in the world.
At some point Soviet communism became lower status than American capitalism.
Cultural Marxism has no such alternative to point to, so it's hard to switch.
It's is the highest status system in the world.
Central to this theory is the belief that humans are wired to seek status
Any good political agent will organize these ppl on the basis of increasing their status, the way any commercial agent will find a way to make money.
Equality is an amazing path to power for a politician:
Any good political agent will organize these ppl on the basis of increasing their status, the way any commercial agent will find a way to make money.
Equality is an amazing path to power for a politician:
If you’re below average, “equality” sounds like “boost in status”, so inherently 1/2 population is always down
& the only way to enact this is to increase state power, which is why it's so politically appealing
Easy way to get voters, & easy way to justify expanding state power
& the only way to enact this is to increase state power, which is why it's so politically appealing
Easy way to get voters, & easy way to justify expanding state power
Cultural Marxism is less formalized than Economic Marxism was, partially because it can't be so explicit otherwise it'd be discredited.
But also because a distributed version (e.g. press, universities) is more effective. No central choke point.
How so?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_…
But also because a distributed version (e.g. press, universities) is more effective. No central choke point.
How so?en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_…
This is why they are so anti-capitalist.
It gives people more options to get status, namely making money.
When you make money, you don't care as much (e.g. China)
Making money makes people less dependent on them and thus less loyal.
It gives people more options to get status, namely making money.
When you make money, you don't care as much (e.g. China)
Making money makes people less dependent on them and thus less loyal.
If it’s easy to earn status through money, you’ll get a house (or start angel investing)
If there’s no way you’re making any money, you need another path. Which path?
Well you can always virtue signal
This is why they attack The American Dream: it's a threat to their power
If there’s no way you’re making any money, you need another path. Which path?
Well you can always virtue signal
This is why they attack The American Dream: it's a threat to their power
How else has it become so powerful?
Without religion, we take moral cues from our political tribes:
Say what you want about socialism, but it is a collective morality
Freedom isn't a morality, or at least a collective one
This is why libertarians lose
Without religion, we take moral cues from our political tribes:
Say what you want about socialism, but it is a collective morality
Freedom isn't a morality, or at least a collective one
This is why libertarians lose
Wait: How does Social Justice lead to Economic Marxism?
Zooming out: What's the end state where social justice would say, "we accomplished our goal?"
Absolute equality of outcome.
(Logically, there is no equal opportunity without equality of outcome)
Zooming out: What's the end state where social justice would say, "we accomplished our goal?"
Absolute equality of outcome.
(Logically, there is no equal opportunity without equality of outcome)
They deny it of course b/c it (communism) is politically unfeasible
To be fair, they genuinely don't believe they are advocating for it.
In practice it's: "I would never advocate for Marxism, I just advocate for all of the policies that would create and enforce Marxism."
To be fair, they genuinely don't believe they are advocating for it.
In practice it's: "I would never advocate for Marxism, I just advocate for all of the policies that would create and enforce Marxism."
Meaning: when the goal is economic "fairness", there's no morally acceptable line until you get to total equality of outcome
You don't just stop & say "OK, we have economic fariness now"
You don't just stop & say: "OK, the government is sufficiently powerful"
It's always more.
You don't just stop & say "OK, we have economic fariness now"
You don't just stop & say: "OK, the government is sufficiently powerful"
It's always more.
There's no in-between.
You're either a total egalitarian or you're not. If you are, you sign up for the whole package.
If you haven't yet, that's just temporary.
There's no stable middle ground.
Otherwise your position is philosophically incoherent & you will have no allies.
You're either a total egalitarian or you're not. If you are, you sign up for the whole package.
If you haven't yet, that's just temporary.
There's no stable middle ground.
Otherwise your position is philosophically incoherent & you will have no allies.
Christopher Caldwell's book talks about how civil rights was explicitly sold on the basis of equality of opportunity for one specific group, but immediately morphed into equality of outcome for every group, & created legal precedent to enact it.
Social justice aims to end all types of discrimination.
Initially that was legal discrimination but over time the scope expanded.
Equality (equal treatment) turned into equity (equal outcome).
That switch is how Cultural Marxism turns Economic.
It's a powerful wedge.
Initially that was legal discrimination but over time the scope expanded.
Equality (equal treatment) turned into equity (equal outcome).
That switch is how Cultural Marxism turns Economic.
It's a powerful wedge.
