But Russia and China are both capitalist countries.
They’re certainly not ideologically liberal, even if they have embraced some liberal economic principles, albeit under significant state control and direction.
But Russia and China are both capitalist countries.
They’re certainly not ideologically liberal, even if they have embraced some liberal economic principles, albeit under significant state control and direction.
Of course, I should have said the Western liberals are defending their position atop the global hegemonic order, and the MLs are trying to unseat them.
I was just trying to think of models that are eligible for the maximum $7,500 tax credit, and that are relatively affordable. There are lots of great EVs out there from several different manufacturers.
Edit: I will mention, though, the Equinox EV looks like it’s a pretty good car, for the price. Car and Driver rated it 8.5/10.
…Tesla - by far the nation’s biggest EV maker - have told a Trump-transition committee they support ending the subsidy…Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest backers and the world’s richest person, said in July that killing the subsidy might slightly hurt Tesla sales but would be “devastating” to its U.S. EV competitors, which include legacy automakers such as General Motors.
Jesus. So much for the idea that Tesla is working to accelerate the transition from ICE vehicles to EVs.
I will never buy a fucking Tesla. Ever. I would buy a Chevrolet Equinox EV, and I encourage anyone who is in the market for a new vehicle to buy one before the tax credit goes away.
Edit: I would also get the Honda Prologue. It’s also eligible for the $7,500 tax credit. So is the Volkswagen ID.4.
Marxist-Leninists support Soviet and Chinese imperialism for the same reason liberals support Western imperialism: they’re both ideologues who want their people and ideals at the top of the global hegemonic order. They’re in a war for global ideological (and possibly ethnic) supremacy, with the winner getting to rule the world.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe group autonomy and independence must be sacrificed for economic and material stability. Maybe strong, centralized technocratic states are better for the broad base of people than allowing each group to have their own autonomy and self governance. If that’s true, then I guess the US needs to become more like China. How do we go about doing that?
Well, I’m not a bolshevik, or Marxist-Leninist/Maoist, whatever, so that’s not what I want. I realize that MLs don’t really give a shit what people want, though. Still, I think the US getting taken over by MLs is pretty unlikely.
Isn’t more division inevitable, though? I know a lot of people want to believe that Americans are more unified than not, and that we only disagree on some details, but agree on the core principles, but is that actually true? I think most Americans generally believe in broadly liberal ideals, like individual rights and freedoms, but disagree pretty strongly on which rights and freedoms should be prioritized (or recognized/enforced at all), and for whom. And that makes a pretty big difference. Those differences are more fundamental than a lot of people would like to acknowledge. Plus, there are, I think, a not insignificant number of Americans who aren’t guided by liberal principles at all. I’m one of those people, and, look, I understand that people like me are a small minority, but we exist. And I’m kind of sick of not having any representation at all.
The Soviet Union failed, though.
What is the solution?
People have been doing this?
I have this fantasy that I and everyone in the US who shares my ideology could all move to the same state, take over the state legislature and just build our own semi autonomous micro nation. But then I realize that 12 people moving to the same state probably isn’t going to make any difference.
Ok, but even if the person living in Seattle and the person living in Lafayette are (at this moment in time) not as different as a person living in Zurich is to a person living in Lisbon, they might be different enough in their conception of what America is, or should be, that is ridiculous to act like they are each a part of a singular American consensus. The folly is not on all of us, because there is no “us.”
It’s more complex than that. For one, there were many nations of people on the North American continent before European contact, each with distinct languages, cultures, traditions, etc. Then, people from many different nations immigrated to the United States, again, each bringing with them their own language, culture, traditions, etc. And then of course there were the African slaves, brought here against their will, once again, bringing with them their own cultures, etc, etc. Over time, each district culture, language, and tradition was eliminated and replaced by a singular, dominant cultural hegemony, that of English speaking protestants of almost exclusively northern European ancestry. That hegemonic order was maintained through force, repression, violence, and in some cases literal genocide.
That hegemony had been maintained for several generations, but it has been weakening over recent decades, as groups seek emancipation and autonomy. African Americans, indigenous Americans, Spanish speaking Americans who are recent immigrants or descendents of recent immigrants, all these groups (and more) are slowly eroding the dominant hegemony of English speaking people of European ancestry. As the hegemony erodes, distinct cultures will be able to emerge/reemerge, and/or many distinct groups of people will organically evolve along different paths, due to different geography and climate, economic conditions, history, etc.
It’s true that the differences between us aren’t nearly as significant as the differences between the various nations of Europe - YET - but that is because of the hegemony that has been in place, that had made the United States relatively culturally homogeneous. That will change. It already is changing. The hegemony is slowly (or maybe not so slowly) breaking down, and that will lead to ever increasing cultural and ethnic diversity. New, distinct nations of people will emerge, existing nations that had been violently repressed and forced to assimilate will reassert their autonomy, and this fiction about the United States being one nation of people will be exposed. It’s already happening.
You’re so close to getting it.
Americans have got to be the dumbest bunch out there.
Of the countries that score above a 0.9 on the human development index, the US is definitely among the stupidest, if not the stupidest. But, that’s kind of misleading. The US shouldn’t be compared to places like Switzerland or Norway, nations that have populations of less than 10 million. The US is more comparable to the EU as a whole. We should be seen as a union of nations rather than a single nation, and like the EU we have some states that are much more developed than others.
So, we’re not one “bunch” of people, anymore than Europe is one “bunch” of people.
Studies suggest political divisions are increasingly seen as moral judgments, fostering a “mega-identity” where political views signify personal decency.
I think this is important information that doesn’t get enough attention. The divisions that exist in the US today are often portrayed in the media as mostly superficial, as though we only disagree on the minor details of public policy choices, but generally agree on the core principles. I don’t think that’s true. I think there are significant ideological, philosophical, and moral disagreements among Americans. We have fundamentally different ideals, and we have differing visions of how America should be, and for how people should act and behave.
There are not only two different visions. I don’t think it is a strict dichotomy. I think there are several different, visions for the US. Some left, some right; some that want to focus on religious, social, cultural, or ethnic issues, some that want to focus on economic or material issues. There are multiple different ideals competing for supremacy, since the US is a de facto two party system, the winners are which ever groups can form the largest coalition of voters.
53% of white women just voted for Trump.
Well, I’m not distinguishing between myself and the liberals based on skin color, but ideology. Liberalism is not an ideology that is exclusive to people with light skin. There are plenty of liberals who have darker skin. There are also many people who are left of liberals who have lighter skin, myself included.
They should be handled as a problem.
I don’t understand. Handled how?
I consider myself a staunch democrat (notice the lower case “d,” I am not a liberal), in that I am a strong advocate for democracy. But, maybe I, and others, need to rethink our positions on democracy. It doesn’t seem like a very good idea to have people who are generally ignorant of climate science, or science in general, deciding what US climate policy should be. We shouldn’t put questions like, “is climate change real,” to a vote. We have the scientific method for determining that, and It works so much better than popular opinion.
My defense of democracy generally comes down to: “yes, there are some ignorant people out there, but most people are well enough informed and reasonable enough.” Maybe that’s not always true.