3 ms·
My parents grew up during the Cultural Revolution. I'm slightly modifying some terminology so the parallels become more clear (original terminology was in Manda
by padastra 6y ago
My parents grew up during the Cultural Revolution. I'm slightly modifying some terminology so the parallels become more clear (original terminology was in Mandarin anyways, so...):
It started off as pro-equality and for the people. Then, any evidence that you are outperforming others in a "capitalist" way became evidence that you are anti-equality and therefore against the people. This quickly devolved into merit not being determined by a willingness to pay (the cornerstone of economics) to merit being determined by virtue-signaling and connections (the cornerstone of politics). As many other posters have mentioned, this is a poor way to judge merit and soon beliefs come up against reality. When this happens reality always wins and things that become dependent on higher-productivity (in modern society, this is almost all things) collapse.
I see a lot of parallels. For the left, the structures of capitalism and racism are intertwined. In this article, the author gives examples of how being a white male and doing well is itself evidence of soft-racism. These parents are noticing that in corporate boards, medical schools, law schools, elite colleges across the country, merit is determined not by accomplishments but by virtue-signaling (note: this is not the same as Affirmative Action; one is boosting entrance rates for Blacks, American Indians, and Latinos/Latinas, the other is saying "only this type of White person who has acknowledged that racism/capitalism is inherent to their accomplishments is allowed").
Assuming these beliefs come to dominate American power structures in the next 20 years (more than in the past 20), I am quite worried. Some structural anti-racism might be a net good. Heck, America has a lot of room to move to the left and a bit more equality may also be a net good -- McCarthyism was much more extreme in the other direction, after all. But historically, this cult-like faith-based groupthink where dissension and alternate beliefs are seen as evil has not turned out well; reality always wins over beliefs.
- legacynl 6y agoThere are some pretty big and critical differences you're glossing over. - The forcing of ideals in Yugoslavia was done 'top-down', by people with power, not bottoms-up. - Citizens have no authority over others. - The United States is a democracy, with separation of political powers. I hope you understand that this makes the comparison to Yugoslavia nonsensical.
- padastra 6y agoDo you think Mao just forcibly hoisted the Cultural Revolution on the populace, or did he just take advantage of a sentiment that was sweeping the times? Or a softer version: do you think McCarthy in the U.S. was potentially dangerous, or will our democracy inherently protect us against being too extreme for all time?
- refurb 6y agoCitizens have no authority over others. Didnt a bunch of woke high school students get a decades long NY Times writer fired recently?
- inglor_cz 6y agoOne of the problems with your argument, legacyln, is, that few things can really be done 'top-down'. Even tyrants rely on a subset of dedicated collaborators down there who are absolutely willing to spy and terrorize their neighbours either for a small material gain or out of ideological zealotry. The experience of the world behind the Iron Curtain says that you must really be wary of whom you trust. The greatest force helping tyrants stay and grow is an unassuming balding man next door who collects all your shortcomings and informs on you regularly. Without a million people like him, every oppressive apparatus would be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of work needed to control an entire nation. Whatever happens on Twitter each day really resembles the struggle sessions and witch hunts of yesteryear. At the end of the day, authoritarianism is carried on by will of a certain subset of the people, not just by authorities.