|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.).
Between that and this:
It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up.
Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died.
When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo.
|
On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example).
Socialists love bikes? Citation needed. Being Dutch, I know a lot of people who use bikes. It's been a while since I lived there, so perhaps things changed, but the main driver for using a car, public transport or a bike is convenience, not political orientation. You could make an argument that the reason bikes are ever convenient is political, but I'd counter that that isn't true: the reason for bikes' convenience in Holland is geographical: it's a very flat and very densely populated country.
I see similar things around the world, btw, with regards to bike use: it's increasingly popular to bike around Spanish cities, but people who live or work on hills prefer public transport, and people who live more than ~10km will go by car or public transport unless they treat the ride to work more as a workout that also happens to get them to work and back. This, once again, has very little to do with socialism and a lot to do with convenience. Laying down bike lanes is an excellent idea to improve the convenience of going by bike, and here in Spain it is indeed the case that the left-wing parties prefer bike lanes over more infrastructure for cars, while right-wing parties are the reverse. But even the most fervent Francoist here will generally agree that there isn't enough space for more cars in the inner city so other solutions are needed.
It's a rather long segway into the idea that a socialist government will prioritize solving climate problems moreso than our current capitalist governments. What actually needs to change is peoples' mindset away from "I need X as cheaply as possible and everything else be damned" to "I need X, but only if I can get it without compromising other people and the planet". I understand the latter is incompatible with neoliberalism, but positing that the only solution is therefore a socialist revolution is a false dichotomy.
|
Am from Belgium, can confirm socialists love bikes over here.
Well really it's the Green party that loves bikes most, and they are always in coalition with the socialist party.
|
On February 20 2023 19:31 Laurens wrote:
Am from Belgium, can confirm socialists love bikes over here.
Well really it's the Green party that loves bikes most, and they are always in coalition with the socialist party.
Us communists do too, but not as much as public transit from what I've gathered
|
On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: Show nested quote +It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo.
That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore 
In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure.
In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be.
|
|
|
Norway28553 Posts
On February 20 2023 17:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). Socialists love bikes? Citation needed. Being Dutch, I know a lot of people who use bikes. It's been a while since I lived there, so perhaps things changed, but the main driver for using a car, public transport or a bike is convenience, not political orientation. You could make an argument that the reason bikes are ever convenient is political, but I'd counter that that isn't true: the reason for bikes' convenience in Holland is geographical: it's a very flat and very densely populated country. I see similar things around the world, btw, with regards to bike use: it's increasingly popular to bike around Spanish cities, but people who live or work on hills prefer public transport, and people who live more than ~10km will go by car or public transport unless they treat the ride to work more as a workout that also happens to get them to work and back. This, once again, has very little to do with socialism and a lot to do with convenience. Laying down bike lanes is an excellent idea to improve the convenience of going by bike, and here in Spain it is indeed the case that the left-wing parties prefer bike lanes over more infrastructure for cars, while right-wing parties are the reverse. But even the most fervent Francoist here will generally agree that there isn't enough space for more cars in the inner city so other solutions are needed. It's a rather long segway into the idea that a socialist government will prioritize solving climate problems moreso than our current capitalist governments. What actually needs to change is peoples' mindset away from "I need X as cheaply as possible and everything else be damned" to "I need X, but only if I can get it without compromising other people and the planet". I understand the latter is incompatible with neoliberalism, but positing that the only solution is therefore a socialist revolution is a false dichotomy.
I'm honestly pretty confident that you'll see 'bicycle lanes' get significantly more support from leftist parties and voters than from right wing parties and voters in all of western Europe. Denmark and Netherlands might be exceptions, in the sense that bicycles are such good methods of transportation in densely populated and flat countries that they're supported by everyone, but I'm fairly certain in every other country, you'll see the same thing you see in Spain, that leftist countries support bike-friendly policies, while right wing politicians are more likely to support car-friendly policies.
Some of this is probably cultural. Much like there are significant differences regarding food that shouldn't have any relation with political affiliation, (while it might make sense that leftists are more likely to be vegetarians (being more concerned with environmentalism in general), leftists being more likely to eat their lamb as part of a curry instead of a roast would be cultural), or preferred sport, but some of it is also grounded in different political attitudes. The car is more consumer-friendly, and consumption-oriented than bikes and public transportation are.
Anecdotally I know plenty of people who are or have been bike-commuters (and I live in a city which, while having bicycle lanes, also happens to be extremely hilly (we built the world's first bicycle lift back in 1993) and which has occasionally icy roads between october and may) and they've all been apolitical or left-leaning. Meanwhile my car-commuting friends are much more likely to lean right. In Norway, this is honestly so established that I don't know what is cause and what is effect: I know people who prefer driving to the point where the most left-leaning parties are rejected because they're so anti-car, while they might actually somewhat agree with many of their other policies.
|
On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. New Jersey Bans Sales of Gasoline-Powered Cars After 2035
Following five other states and the EU, NJ will only allow sales of zero-emission vehicles, primarily EVs but also fuel cell, which must also be powered by clean energy sources.
The Garden State is going even greener, with New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy announcing that all new car sales in the state must be for zero-emission vehicles by 2035.
The state previously committed to doing so by 2050, but has accelerated that timeline. The electricity for the EVs must also come from 100% clean energy sources as part of the state's comprehensive plan to combat climate change.
“These bold targets and carefully crafted initiatives signal our unequivocal commitment to swift and concrete climate action today,” Gov. Murphy says. “These comprehensive initiatives will better protect and prepare every New Jersey community, including those on the front lines of climate change who have previously been left out and left behind.”
Five other US states have committed to only allowing zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035:
California (Aug. 2022)
New York (Sept. 2022)
Massachusetts (Dec. 2022)
Washington (Dec. 2022)
Oregon (Dec. 2022)
New Jersey (Feb. 2023)
Outside of the US, the EU parliament this week approved legislation to do the same.
Zero-emission vehicles could theoretically include electric or hydrogen fuel cell, but it's all but certain the overwhelming majority will be EVs. The Biden administration has allocated $5 billion to a national EV charging network; it announced today that Tesla will open up its proprietary chargers to other car brands.
Most if not all US automakers have committed to fully or partially electrifying their lineups in the next few decades, such as General Motors, which will do so by 2035. A select few offer hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as the Toyota Mirai and a 2024 version of the Honda CR-V, but the nation's hydrogen fueling station network is small and largely limited to California.
By 2035, the goal is to have a large selection of EVs at dealers and the national charging infrastructure to make traveling in them much smoother than it is today. Getting there feels far from today's reality for many consumers who are concerned about limited or unreliable charging infrastructure, range anxiety, and the high price of electric vehicles compared to gas-powered.
But New Jersey says the need for change is urgent. “The climate change impacts we are already experiencing in our state demand that we take innovative, decisive action today to give future generations of New Jersey residents a chance at a good quality of life,” says Lt. Gov. Sheila Oliver. “Our deep affection for New Jersey and the people who call it home propel us to adopt policies and launch programs that help us address and adapt to the realities of climate change."
The state will also convert to 100% clean energy sources, which will generate the electricity for EVs if all goes according to plan. Natural gas currently generates about half(Opens in a new window) of the electricity in New Jersey. Murphy says the state will work "side-by-side with our natural gas utilities to put forward a comprehensive plan for a future less reliant on fossil fuels."
Heating and cooling systems in homes will also be electrified, with incentives to reward households who convert.
"The ultimate goal of every New Jerseyan is to leave to their kids and to future generations a state that is better than the one in which we currently live," says(Opens in a new window) Gov. Murphy. "For their sake, and to give them the head start they will need against climate change, let’s do this now." https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be.
From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates.
Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though.
As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US.
If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails.
EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as
I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you.
|
|
|
If done correctly, you don't sacrifice personal freedom. I have a car. I just don't use it to commute, or do the shopping (most of the time). Instead I have the car to go into the mountains at the weekend or road trip around the country/continent on a holiday.
I feel a lot free-er when I go around the city WITHOUT the car than if I have to drive in for some god forsaken reason, because finding parking is always hell.
And when I lived in Brazil and absolutely needed my car to commute, the parking problem didn't go away in a city "designed" for car use.
|
|
|
United States41958 Posts
Eh, I’m pretty pro car. A few weeks back I wanted to go in to work at midnight to do some observations on the night shift production line. About a 15 minute drive but about 15 miles of suburbia. I left to hit the gym at 2am because they were between production runs, then went from the gym to pick up breakfast burritos for my team, then back to the plant around 4. Then home around 7.
The flexibility that a car gives you in a city built for cars is second to none. Gym stuff just idle in the back of my car, no issues with backpacks or whatever. You can just do whatever and whenever on a whim.
In cramped cities cars suck but that’s because putting millions of people in a few square miles is a bad idea. But cars in cities designed for cars really are an all American expression of freedom, they let you manage your life as you see fit. I don’t think the message should be that cars suck, you’re not going to convince someone like me that my life would be massively improved if only I rode the bus more. You’ll have more luck with “we all love cars but the sea levels are rising and the air is filled with CO2 so we have to make sacrifices”.
|
On February 21 2023 04:33 KwarK wrote:
Eh, I’m pretty pro car. A few weeks back I wanted to go in to work at midnight to do some observations on the night shift production line. About a 15 minute drive but about 15 miles of suburbia. I left to hit the gym at 2am because they were between production runs, then went from the gym to pick up breakfast burritos for my team, then back to the plant around 4. Then home around 7.
The flexibility that a car gives you in a city built for cars is second to none. Gym stuff just idle in the back of my car, no issues with backpacks or whatever. You can just do whatever and whenever on a whim.
In cramped cities cars suck but that’s because putting millions of people in a few square miles is a bad idea. But cars in cities designed for cars really are an all American expression of freedom, they let you manage your life as you see fit. I don’t think the message should be that cars suck, you’re not going to convince someone like me that my life would be massively improved if only I rode the bus more. You’ll have more luck with “we all love cars but the sea levels are rising and the air is filled with CO2 so we have to make sacrifices”.
Hm, I didn't hear anybody "anti-car", but that aside, I think the main problem here is your assertion that putting millions of people in a few square miles is a bad idea. It's actually a remarkably good idea. You get economy of scale for living. It's probably also the only sustainable way of housing 10billion people. If everybody in London had a house the size of the average US suburbia, they'd probably cover all of England. Let alone trying to do that in south-east Asia or other even denser areas.
Furthermore, it's amazing if done well. You have the shopping, the restaurants, the nightlife, the offices, everything within walk/bike/public transport distance. Taxis serve for the rare trips where the aforementioned modes don't work well. And then, natural beauty is a 20 minute drive (or train ride) out of town, rather than having to spend 2 hours exiting the endless sprawl of suburbs.
It's something that surprised me a LOT about São Paulo, in fact. It's a city of 20million inhabitants. It's a sprawling hellscape of a city, as you'd imagine for a city that size. But that's more than the population of the Netherlands packed into it. If you trace the area of the Netherlands around São Paulo, it includes rather a lot of unspoilt nature. Either heading to the coast (Santos is quite miserable, but Guarujá just next to it has some beautiful nature), or to the hills in the southwest (on the map, south of Sorocaba) or the hills in the northeast (on the map, north of São Jose dos Campos). And city planning in São Paulo is awful! Imagine what you can do with good city planning (or in the case of Rio, pure dumb luck).
|
|
|
I don't think it's controversial to say that cars are more appreciated in sparsely populated areas with minimal public transit and adequate parking than they are in densely populated areas with adequate public transit and minimal parking. The problem is this is often and either/or proposition. You can't have lots of traffic lanes and bicycle lanes and bus lanes and also hella parking places for everyone all while making things very walkable. Some people prefer living in big urban cities and some people prefer rural or suburban areas.
The parking space problem will probably be solved when we have driverless cars that you summon with a press of a button and can drop you off and then go find their own parking spot outside of the congested areas. In San Francisco we have driverless taxis now although I haven't gotten around to trying one.
|
On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 09:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Several states have decided to transition away from gas-powered cars over the next 1-2 decades. On one hand, it sounds like this is a (tiny?) step in a positive direction, to finally force some change by creating a mandatory timeline. On the other hand, there might be some questions about what will replace those cars, should we be prioritizing more meaningful changes instead (e.g., will checking off this box of "finally doing something" by no longer selling gas-powered cars be less effective than if we checked off the box by increasing/improving public transportation and finding ways to focus less on requiring a car in the United States). Maybe there's enough room and resources to tackle this multi-faceted problem through several reforms at once, like how New Jersey also wants to make sure homes are running more efficiently and on clean energy (see article below)? I assume it's better than nothing, but I'm also guessing we might not be prioritizing the biggest issues? What do you think about states making decisions like this? And as far as the "politics" of this goes, I'm guessing this will be something that more liberal/blue regions care about than conservative/red ones, which is already supported by the fact that CA, NY, MA, WA, OR, and NJ are leading the charge. [quote] https://www.pcmag.com/news/new-jersey-bans-sales-of-gasoline-powered-cars-after-2035?fbclid=IwAR2fQBdrmRG-vlOSNM4N With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark. I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that Show nested quote +I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as Show nested quote +I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you.
I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism.
On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like?
|
On February 21 2023 02:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2023 12:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 11:33 JimmiC wrote:
The biggest impact would be designing cities for people instead of cars and making mass improvements in public transport, or better yet design it for bikes like Copenhagen is. Whether the cars are gas or electric you have many environmental problems not only from the manufacturing, powering and upkeep, but the massive roads needed and upkeep on them. The whole suberbia idea was a horrible one for the enviroment and quality of life for people overall. Yeah my state (New Jersey - the most densely populated state) could probably benefit greatly from overhauling transportation, and not just within cities. I think the most common argument I hear for keeping cars and not wanting to center one's life around public transportation (especially in suburban/rural areas) is the freedom one has to drive wherever they need to go, whenever they need to go there, because in our current environment, that's our only option. I can leave for work or for errands on my own schedule, without needing to abide by bus or train schedules (and god forbid those public transportation alternatives aren't running on time); I don't need to live within walking/bicycling distance of my destinations or bus/train stops; I can complete multiple errands (food shopping, going to a mall, etc.) and store everything in my car instead of holding everything; etc. It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider. *I think of how school buses stop every few blocks in a suburban/rural area - literally an additional stop every 1-2 minutes - to pick up and drop off children, and I wonder if it needs to be that close to one's house for an American adult to consider it a viable option as well. If we're too lazy to walk a few blocks to a bus/train station, or if we're in a rush, or if the public transportation schedule doesn't match our schedule, or if it's terrible weather... then either we need to drive to the station and hope that parking exists, or pay for an Uber to drop us off... in which case, it might be more convenient for some people to just take their own car. The bus stops, frequency, quality all those things are certainly important. But a huge factor that gets dismissed is the design and plans around cities. When they are designed for cars they become inhuman. For example my little city tried to remove mandatory parking spots for buildings. Huge uproar about how inconvenient it would be and it did not happen. A, it was meant to be inconvenient for cars but more than that it would have opened up a huge amount of space for not only parks but patios for restaurants, bike lanes, so on. Even when cities just close a little bit of their downtown to traffic it amazing how much of a social benefit there is to people as they are basically forced to interact with each other. I'm scratching the surface, and probably doing a bad job but there is a lot of city planning courses on this sort of thing and Copenhagen is a pretty famous city in that world for what they have done to reduce car traffic, up bike and public transport and how that has dramatically increased quality of life. That is before you even get into the environmental benefits. The environmental part is a huge hot button politically so I wonder if you would get further if you instead talked of quality of the life. The big issue would be where you mentioned the personal freedom aspect. It is hard for people to wrap their head around sacrificing some personal freedom for the greater good is still better for them personally because they are part of the greater good. It also takes trusting the government who makes those choices, which understandability in the US would be a hard thing to do. Also, really hard to raise 20m for a municipal, or 100m for a governor run on polices that involve getting rid of parking, making it harder for cars easier for bikes and investing in public transit. The campaign finance stuff you guys have also makes a lot of progress really hard.
I think those are all good points, and I think that bringing up quality of life improvements outside of the environmental part will be important to get significant support for changes like the ones you're referring to, even if the environmental impact is one of the biggest benefits.
|
On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:02 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
With consideration for the horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles under a capitalist regime, it definitely misses the mark.
I'm doubtful it amounts to much more than window dressing to assuage neocolonial consciences of culpability for the conscious dooming of future generations 1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons. 1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars. 2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like?
More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism?
|
On February 21 2023 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons.
1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars.
2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism?
If you're actually interested in that I'd recommend skipping all the more ideological and political books with capitalism in the name and read an introductory economics textbook. Mankiws Principles of Economics is the most famous one, but from what I understand Krugman has one as well. They go over the basics of why markets work, market failure, government failure etc. Then work from there and read a more intermediate book. There are also two good subreddits for this: AskEconomics and BadEconomics. It'll give you a good overview of why the current market-based system is used for allocating scarce resources but also where they do not work.
Only after that would I start reading any more political books. It's much easier to filter out the bs from all sides of the political spectrum if you know the basics.
|
On February 21 2023 12:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2023 10:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 21 2023 01:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 15:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 13:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 12:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 11:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 20 2023 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 20 2023 10:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
1a. Could you please elaborate on what the "horrific atrocities required to facilitate the electrification of new US automobiles" would be? I'm not well-versed on this topic, so I don't know all the pros and cons.
1b. Piggybacking off 1a, would you say that there are also "horrific atrocities" related to maintaining the status quo and not transitioning away from gas-powered cars? Just wondering if the good and bad of what we currently have is relatively more ideal than the good and bad of what we'd experience if/when we transition away from gas-powered cars.
2. What would be a better move to make, in your opinion, than switching to zero-emission vehicles? (I understand that "better" could be subjective, so feel free to interpret that however you want, be it "more effective at completing the goal", "more likely to safely avoid the risk of horrific atrocities", etc.) I think 1a was taken care of in an edit before your post but if it's still unclear you can let me know. 1b. Yes, the status quo is dripping with horrific atrocities (also in the edit) As to the relative good and bad aspect, I think at best it's the window dressing I described and more than likely is detrimental to a goal of reducing suffering on net for some of the reasons you mentioned like "welp we did something, don't need to worry about that now" and others. 2. Pursuing revolutionary socialism, which would include so called "zero-emission vehicles" (socialists already love bikes for example). I missed your edit; thanks for that elaboration. When you say that your ideal solution would be "Pursuing revolutionary socialism" to get to things like zero-emission vehicles, does that mean that the movement from gas-powered cars to zero-emission vehicles can be either good or bad depending on the route we take to transition from the former to the latter (i.e., probably not worth performing the transition if the strategy involves capitalism, but probably worth performing the transition if socialist principles were valued instead)? Could you also elaborate on why socialism would fix this problem? I'm wondering if it's at all possible to implement that theoretical socialist solution in a country like the United States. Is there a way to realistically sell a socialist solution to the American people without most of them freaking out that you use the taboo "s" word? And if not - if the ideal socialist approach of yours is honestly too far away from where the American people are in the year 2023 - what would be the closest we could get to something better than what we currently have, even if it's classified as capitalist or non-socialist? Is there a plausible step in your ideal direction that would be an easier sell for more people, to slowly, gradually shift the Overton window? My pleasure. Sort of. From a social organizing/city planning perspective on climate change the emphasis on electrifying cars misses the forest for the trees. Socialists tend to agree that the emphasis should be on making "walkable cities" with adequate public infrastructure to service residents while prioritizing them over cars. Certainly to the degree that cars would still serve a purpose in such a society, electrifying them is a rational pursuit. In that we see hints at the next parts of your post. Which, while sounding innocuous enough, are actually somewhat loaded. To start I'd reject the framing of "socialism would fix this problem" and replace it with "why/how would socialism handle these problems differently and what makes that way preferable to capitalism?". The answer there seems obvious to me and presumably to anyone that understands the value of things like public utilities and universal healthcare. The next part is about the people who might/probably don't recognize the value of public utilities/universal healthcare/etc and openly advocate for their privatization. To that, I would say that's part of why I advocate revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism. To the general "possibility" I'd say the capacity to reconcile the seemingly impossible into the realm of the possible and existing is one of the most terrifyingly wonderful things there is about being human. The "walkable city" approach sounds like a great way to improve urban / densely populated areas. What about suburban and rural areas? (A lot of what I just wrote out to JimmiC seems applicable here too, in that it sounds like it'd be a lot more difficult when there are already communities set up that have a lot of open land separating families, businesses, etc.) You may have preemptively answered that with the affirmation that (electrified) cars - and, still, a greater emphasis on improving public transportation connections, wherever possible - might end up being the best we could hope for with suburban and rural areas ("a rational pursuit", as you put it). When you say that you advocate for "revolutionary socialism as opposed to stuff like social democracy or the modern US interpretation of democratic socialism", does that mean that you think it's plausible that the United States could jump from its current capitalism-focused system all the way to a socialism-focused system that you'd be reasonably pleased with, without needing to entertain gradual intermediary steps towards the left, like first making the principles of social democracy and Democratic socialism more appealing to more Americans? To me, it sounds like a slower transition would be necessary to make some of these ideas more palatable, which would lead to more people potentially supporting political and economic reform, and I'm not sure how you can have a socialist revolution without a ton more support than what currently exists in the United States. This may be due to ignorance or poor marketing by socialists (or really good anti-marketing by capitalists and conservatives), but a very low percentage of Americans have a "very positive" view of socialism ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/09/19/modest-declines-in-positive-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism-in-u-s/ ) and it would only be a subset of those who would feel comfortable to not just support an eventual movement towards socialism, but a radical revolution. I think there's an insane learning curve to consider, and a giant taboo to overcome. It might be the case that a theoretical overnight shift to socialism would be the best solution, but I'm also wondering what would be realistic and practical given the hand we're being dealt (two-party system, Republicans are definitely not favoring socialism, most Democrats don't favor socialism, etc.). Between that and this: It sounds to me like the first step to getting more Americans on board with moving away from a car-only life would be to have so many new bus/train stations* (and running so frequently), that Americans would consider switching some of their routines to public transportation if it wouldn't end up being a huge disruption, like perhaps their daily work commute, even if they still use their car for a few minor errands later that night. I don't know how big of a financial commitment it would be for a state government to implement all this, but if that's the path that ends up being most beneficial for society, it's surely one to deeply consider.
I'd say this is a typical reformism vs revolutionary debate which I've addressed several times in multiple ways. I don't think me repeating it would be helpful and I've already demonstrated I'm familiar with the objections people have to revolutionary socialism and where I notice this typically ends up. Basically this is a project over 100 years (many including probing and exhausting various reformist rationales) in the making so it won't be "overnight" even if it happened tomorrow. On the other hand, the sudden "One day it was that way, and today it's this way" sort of aspect will probably look something like when the divine right of kings died. When it comes to the revolutionary vs reformism stuff, simply put, I think people who already believe socialism is the "lesser evil" to capitalism (that's includes you right?) are better off advocating revolutionary socialism as their "imperfectly optimal prescription that just needs modifications from within it's own parameters" instead of the capitalist status quo. That's totally fair, and I can definitely go back through the cited RvR conversations/debates you've had in the past. I didn't expect the scope to broaden this much - I was originally looking for a smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state program that would act as a potentially better step in the ideal direction than simply phasing out gas-powered cars - but I appreciate you identifying that my premise/path isn't the only starting position/strategy one could build from, and that there are other options to explore In response to your question about the lesser of two evils, I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall (especially since most of my experiences come from watching American news and American politicians, which are more to the right than some other countries that offer more exposure to more leftist/socialist alternatives). I think I align more with Social Democrats and David Pakman (and Bernie Sanders?) than, say, true Socialism and Vaush - in that a society containing heavily regulated capitalism and an abundance of social and welfare programs seems to be more appealing to me than public ownership of the means of production. It might be the case that I primarily feel that way because that's the most progressive I think that the United States could ever truly become, and it's as far to the left as Americans seem to be willing to entertain at this point in time, but I don't know for sure. In the covid thread (specifically, this page: https://tl.net/forum/general/556693-coronavirus-and-you?page=688 ), several European TLers posted about the quality of life that their countries' systems ensure for their people, which are lightyears ahead of what the United States does. I don't know what labels Simberto's Germany, Silvanel's Poland, Acrofales's Spain, and Symplectos's Luxembourg would have in this conversation about capitalism and socialism, but the United States is definitely not where it ought to be. From my perspective "looking for smaller, simpler, realistic state-by-state programs" in the context of US politics and climate change isn't "pragmatic", but simply a euphemism for sacrificing untold millions at the altar of capitalism for the sake of maintaining some relative comfort by its advocates. Yes a lifetime of capitalist and anti-communist propaganda most certainly influences your perspective. I can't express the level of yikes the idea that Vaush is who comes to mind when you think of "true socialism" gave me though. As for "heavily regulated capitalism", that's another euphemism for "bribe the domestic populace while pushing the suffering and atrocities of capitalism out of sight" from my perspective. There's no question that various social democratic European countries have much more domestically equitable loot splits though. + Show Spoiler +There's a lot of history that has to be considered when trying to understand why social democracy is so much more popular/successful in various European countries than in the US. If nothing else it's important to note that your opposition to socialism (like many in the US) is built on a foundation of ignorance of what socialism represents and capitalism entails. EDIT: I should add for context that I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of capitalism and socialism to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall sounds as silly coming from a well educated adult to me as I don't know if I'm informed enough on all the nuances and semantics of different kinds of Republicans and Democrats to know for sure where on the spectrum I fall from the same would for you. I mean, half the country is Democrats and half the country is Republicans, including neighbors and colleagues and friends, and two-party affiliations and political beliefs are what Americans are inundated with every day, so I'd expect people to be way better versed with Democrats and Republicans than with something as absent from American conversation as real socialism. On that note, who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? More people consider themselves not a Democrat or Republican than identify as either on its own. That aside, let me first ask who you would recommend I read or watch for a fair assessment of the pros and cons of capitalism?
I have no idea. I've been very clear that I don't have a strong background in topics surrounding capitalism and (or vs.) socialism. You're clearly very passionate about promoting socialism, so I figured you'd have some suggestions: Who would you recommend I read or watch if I wanted a fair assessment of the pros and cons of socialism in present-day society, and what a realistic path to socialism in America would look like? I'm asking in good faith, interested in learning more about the topics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
