Ironies of History

[rotting bones]

While I don't have your lived experiences, and don't care any more than you do for any of those things, the idea of the "destruction of tradition" means to me the destruction of relics, history, art, and culture into the bargain (because this seems to be what's happened in practice), and not merely the breakdown of hierarchies and systems of abuse.

While I don't support the destruction of cultural artifacts myself, many of those artifacts are monuments to those very systems of abuse: palaces to glorify abusive rulers, panegyrics about abusive social systems, and so on. This is why I don't want to butt in where it's simply none of my business. What do you or I know about the abuses that may or may not have been perpetrated by a landlord who dedicated a temple that the locals tore down in China or Cambodia?

Extending the same courtesy to Americans, I don't judge those who advocate for the destruction of Confederate statues either. Not being American, the distinction between these two categories of artifacts is not obvious to me. Being American, you may feel differently. But then, the lines may once again be blurred when you learn more about the abuses carried out by Chinese landlords.

[Ares Land]

That is such a viscerally unpleasant notion I begin to suspect trolling.

If it's so terrible, then why did it appeal to millions of people not too long ago?

Dunno, but it might have something to with having a gun pointed at the back of their head.

The fact that Pol Pot's regime ended in mass genocide might be an hint that the idea might, in fact, be terrible.

[Ares Land]

The metric system may have been a bit premature. If we'd waited a century, we could have defined the foot as 2×10^34 Planck lengths and the pound as 2×10^7 Planck masses.

That might be premature itself! I don't think any physicists are happy with what we know about things at that scale. Once we have a working theory of quantum gravity, I expect we'll have much more salient (and smaller) units to build on.

You're probably right! Though I'm still tempted to use the idea for conworlding...

[Rounin Ryuuji]

While I don't support the destruction of cultural artifacts myself, many of those artifacts are monuments to those very systems of abuse: palaces to glorify abusive rulers, panegyrics about abusive social systems, and so on. This is why I don't want to butt in where it's simply none of my business.

And yet, I find, you say you want to see more destruction of tradition without providing further context. That sounds as much like "butting in" as anybody else discussing the matter.

What do you or I know about the abuses that may or may not have been perpetrated by a landlord who dedicated a temple that the locals tore down in China or Cambodia?

That it is very likely not the fault of the craftspersons who actually built it that the abuses were carried out, and that destroying it does not advance the cause of their liberty any more than destroying Versailles (as opposed to dismantling capitalist structures) would make France a more egalitarian society.

Extending the same courtesy to Americans, I don't judge those who advocate for the destruction of Confederate statues either. Not being American, the distinction between these two categories of artifacts is not obvious to me. Being American, you may feel differently. But then, the lines may once again be blurred when you learn more about the abuses carried out by Chinese landlords.

I wouldn't see this as terribly analogous. The confederacy existed for a few years, and anything done to glorify it (that I've encountered) involves a disturbing degree of historical revisionism rather than being part of anything I would consider actually traditional, or tangible cultural heritage. We don't usually destroy the plantation houses and other old buildings for specifically ideological reasons (though I would agree with those who say hosting weddings on historical plantations is in extremely poor taste). Removing statues from public places (for specific reasons, through nonviolent processes, usually without destroying them) is not the same as erasing history, art, and architecture (or destroying works of them) on a massive scale in the hope of some sort of reset from nothing.

I also should probably add that don't necessarily blame people for destroying things in the heat of the moment; I do, however, think advocating for it (or whipping crowds up to destroy tangible heritage rather than take actions that will actually be useful) certainly morally wrong, if nothing else because, as the saying goes, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

[Travis B.]

Khmer Rouge's "Year Zero" was about erasing all of human history, knowledge, and society prior to creating a new society consisting solely of uneducated peasants, which necessarily required killing anyone who was not an uneducated peasant. Anyone who shows any level of knowledge must be killed. This, of course, requires genocide.

[MacAnDàil]

While I don't have your lived experiences, and don't care any more than you do for any of those things, the idea of the "destruction of tradition" means to me the destruction of relics, history, art, and culture into the bargain (because this seems to be what's happened in practice), and not merely the breakdown of hierarchies and systems of abuse.

While I don't support the destruction of cultural artifacts myself, many of those artifacts are monuments to those very systems of abuse: palaces to glorify abusive rulers, panegyrics about abusive social systems, and so on. This is why I don't want to butt in where it's simply none of my business. What do you or I know about the abuses that may or may not have been perpetrated by a landlord who dedicated a temple that the locals tore down in China or Cambodia?

Extending the same courtesy to Americans, I don't judge those who advocate for the destruction of Confederate statues either. Not being American, the distinction between these two categories of artifacts is not obvious to me. Being American, you may feel differently. But then, the lines may once again be blurred when you learn more about the abuses carried out by Chinese landlords.

What about the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Or Daesh destroying millenia-old buildings in Syria?

[Travis B.]

One thing is that in practically all of these cases, those who wished to erase the past were by no means benign whatsoever; they just sought to impose their own authoritarian new order to replace the old one. Why is it that here in America we limit such things to things like the removal of statues and names honoring Confederate figures, which had been specifically imposed by white supremacists in the past? It should be noted that key factor here is that such things specifically honor Confederates, and thus the Confederacy - those advocating for their removal have no intention to erase the memory of the Confederacy itself. Even the most extreme leftists here do not advocate trying to wipe out the past wholesale.

[rotting bones]

What about the destruction of Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Or Daesh destroying millenia-old buildings in Syria?

I feel comfortable straightforwardly opposing these. In these cases, the ones doing the destruction are not destroying artifacts from within their own cultural milieu in protest of injustice in their own lives. In many cases, these people have no authentic tradition regarding the original significance of these artifacts.

Basically, my position is that people should do as they see fit with their own lives. In the cases you mention, the ones doing the destruction are often straightforwardly motivated to demonstrate the power of the majority to erase native diversity. I don't need to know the details of local history to argue that this is unjust.

One thing is that in practically all of these cases, those who wished to erase the past were by no means benign whatsoever; they just sought to impose their own authoritarian new order to replace the old one. Why is it that here in America we limit such things to things like the removal of statues and names honoring Confederate figures, which had been specifically imposed by white supremacists in the past? It should be noted that key factor here is that such things specifically honor Confederates, and thus the Confederacy - those advocating for their removal have no intention to erase the memory of the Confederacy itself. Even the most extreme leftists here do not advocate trying to wipe out the past wholesale.

Note that a lot of classical Chinese imperial institutions were brutally imposed following a period of burning books and burying scholars, etc.

Nevertheless, I said from my very first sentence that I don't support state backing for erasing tradition. What do you want from me? Do I have to love tradition in my personal life as well? I explained that I don't because it fosters abusive relationships. I mean, traditional norms may eventually get replaced by even more abusive capitalist norms, but that doesn't justify the former.

[Travis B.]

I mean, traditional norms may eventually get replaced by even more abusive capitalist norms, but that doesn't justify the former.

Much of attempting to eliminate tradition is simply trying to replace the vestiges of the old order, whatever it may be, with a new order that is no better and often far worse than said old order, no matter whether said new order is Communist (e.g. under the Khmer Rouge), Islamist (e.g. under the Taliban or ISIS), or bourgeois republican (e.g. under revolutionary France), as I stated. No one is saying you ought to love tradition, but trying to eliminate it wholesale is a good sign that those seeking to eliminate it may not be people one should support.

[rotting bones]

Much of attempting to eliminate tradition is simply trying to replace the vestiges of the old order, whatever it may be, with a new order that is no better and often far worse than said old order, no matter whether said new order is Communist (e.g. under the Khmer Rouge), Islamist (e.g. under the Taliban or ISIS), or bourgeois republican (e.g. under revolutionary France), as I stated. No one is saying you ought to love tradition, but trying to eliminate it wholesale is a good sign that those seeking to eliminate it may not be people one should support.

I think the primary mistake of any members of these groups who aren't opportunists is that they are generalizing personal preferences comparable to "chocolate is the best ice cream flavor" far beyond the domains where they are reasonably applicable. Within reasonable bounds, Year Zero is rather similar to Cartesian Skepticism. If you deny the state power to enforce it, it no longer has to force to carry out genocide.

Since there are no logical atoms, ideas aren't coherent wholes, and can be broken down into components ad infinitum. In fact, where ideas are concerned, it's not obvious which ones are "simpler" or more "complex". There are cycles where the process of breaking down an idea into components eventually circles back to the same idea. Eg. "One" is a number. "Number" is one idea.

Also, I don't know if the Khmer Rouge were Communist. IIRC they had extreme ethno-nationalist rhetoric.

[Travis B.]

Also, I don't know if the Khmer Rouge were Communist. IIRC they had extreme ethno-nationalist rhetoric.

Many of the Khmer Rouge were Cambodians who became Communists in France and then later returned to Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party. Yes, it is true that they had extreme ethno-nationalist rhetoric in addition to being Communists. Their insistence on autarky is very reminiscent of the official ideology of North Korea, Juche, I should note.

[rotting bones]

Many of the Khmer Rouge were Cambodians who became Communists in France and then later returned to Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party. Yes, it is true that they had extreme ethno-nationalist rhetoric in addition to being Communists. Their insistence on autarky is very reminiscent of the official ideology of North Korea, Juche, I should note.

Did they get along with the Third International? IIRC they were overthrown by Vietnam.

I don't know if this makes sense, but their ideology reminds me of the degrowth movement. The major difference is that they were willing to do what it takes to enforce it.

[Travis B.]

Many of the Khmer Rouge were Cambodians who became Communists in France and then later returned to Cambodia, and the Khmer Rouge was closely linked with the Chinese Communist Party. Yes, it is true that they had extreme ethno-nationalist rhetoric in addition to being Communists. Their insistence on autarky is very reminiscent of the official ideology of North Korea, Juche, I should note.

Did they get along with the Third International? IIRC they were overthrown by Vietnam.

I don't know if this makes sense, but their ideology reminds me of the degrowth movement. The major difference is that they were willing to do what it takes to enforce it.

Yes, Vietnam overthrew the Khmer Rouge - the Khmer Rouge saw Vietnam as their traditional enemy and insisted on attacking it repeatedly, while at the same time there were Cambodians, even Cambodian Communists, who fled to Vietnam and begged the Vietnamese to do something about the Khmer Rouge. After a number of years of this the Vietnamese had enough and invaded Cambodia, swiftly defeating the Khmer Rouge. Russia sided with Vietnam while China and the US sided with the Khmer Rouge here, for the record.

[hwhatting]

Being Communist doesn't imply that other sects of Communism like you, support you, or even just peacefully co-exist with you. China had wars / border clashes with both Vietnam and Russia, even though all three countries at that point were not only Communist, but specifically Marxist-Leninist.

[rotting bones]

Being Communist doesn't imply that other sects of Communism like you, support you, or even just peacefully co-exist with you. China had wars / border clashes with both Vietnam and Russia, even though all three countries at that point were not only Communist, but specifically Marxist-Leninist.

Of course not, but I'm not convinced you can claim to hold a Communist ideology if at least your propaganda doesn't gesture in the direction of internationalism.

Also, Communism in the Marxist tradition is committed to development. I don't understand how Khmer Rouge policies were meant to achieve that.

[Travis B.]

Being Communist doesn't imply that other sects of Communism like you, support you, or even just peacefully co-exist with you. China had wars / border clashes with both Vietnam and Russia, even though all three countries at that point were not only Communist, but specifically Marxist-Leninist.

Of course not, but I'm not convinced you can claim to hold a Communist ideology if at least your propaganda doesn't gesture in the direction of internationalism.

Also, Communism in the Marxist tradition is committed to development. I don't understand how Khmer Rouge policies were meant to achieve that.

Doesn't this quickly turn into a "no true Scotsman" though?

[rotting bones]

Doesn't this quickly turn into a "no true Scotsman" though?

Sounds like a straightforward contradiction to me, like a devoutly religious Christian who strongly believes that Jesus Christ never existed.

[Travis B.]

Doesn't this quickly turn into a "no true Scotsman" though?

Sounds like a straightforward contradiction to me, like a devoutly religious Christian who strongly believes that Jesus Christ never existed.

The Khmer Rouge's ideology seems to be an offshoot of Communism that replaces the focus upon the worker with a focus upon the (specifically Cambodian) peasant and combines it a view that anyone who is not an uneducated peasant is oppressing said peasants and that society needs to be restarted from scratch and the past must be systematically destroyed, and also replaces internationalism with autarky.

[zompist]

Sounds like a straightforward contradiction to me, like a devoutly religious Christian who strongly believes that Jesus Christ never existed.

What's wrong with that? Why should the fundamentalists and authoritarians get to define Christianity (or any other religion)? You can very definitely be Jewish without believing in God. For that matter K.M. Sen liked to point out that there is an atheist strand within Hinduism. Some mainstream Christian denominations are pretty darn lax about belief.

A 2020 survey found that 30% of Evangelicals (who are supposed to be the rigid conservative types) agreed with the statement "Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.” The leaders are appalled by this, but I find it amusing, and in line with how religions actually work.

The Khmer Rouge's ideology seems to be an offshoot of Communism that replaces the focus upon the worker with a focus upon the (specifically Cambodian) peasant and combines it a view that anyone who is not an uneducated peasant is oppressing said peasants and that society needs to be restarted from scratch and the past must be systematically destroyed, and also replaces internationalism with autarky.

I don't think it's that hard to understand. The Khmer Rouge were basically "Maoism, but more so", and Maoism was "Leninism, but more so." A revolution is literally turning things upside down, and if your toolkit is tearing down oppressive structures, tearing things down can become an end in itself. It's not hard for people to convince themselves that every structure needs tearing down.

For a non-believer it looks crazy and/or counter-productive... destroying things just means destroying things, it doesn't mean that the peasants become free, and in fact it generally means the peasants become less free. On the other hand, sometimes a country really does need a revolution.

[Travis B.]

The Khmer Rouge's ideology seems to be an offshoot of Communism that replaces the focus upon the worker with a focus upon the (specifically Cambodian) peasant and combines it a view that anyone who is not an uneducated peasant is oppressing said peasants and that society needs to be restarted from scratch and the past must be systematically destroyed, and also replaces internationalism with autarky.

I don't think it's that hard to understand. The Khmer Rouge were basically "Maoism, but more so", and Maoism was "Leninism, but more so." A revolution is literally turning things upside down, and if your toolkit is tearing down oppressive structures, tearing things down can become an end in itself. It's not hard for people to convince themselves that every structure needs tearing down.

For a non-believer it looks crazy and/or counter-productive... destroying things just means destroying things, it doesn't mean that the peasants become free, and in fact it generally means the peasants become less free. On the other hand, sometimes a country really does need a revolution.

Yes, the Khmer Rouge's ideology in in many ways what one gets when one takes Maoism and turns it up to eleven, and then simply breaks the knob. The view that it was not "real Marxism" to me seems to be a view that only the original Marxism of Marx and Engels was "real" Marxism, and from this perspective one can argue that Maoism wasn't "real Marxism" either - and arguably Leninism wasn't either.