Can a non-homogeneous democracy compete with a homogeneous? Do you think the US has competed successfully considering they have been non-homogeneous for awhile now.

I have never heard white elitism as the cause for the decline of democracy. I would say it has definitely created a two tired society where some white males get the benefits of other's work disportionally.

Honestly your question(s) seem kind of race baiting in a mild way. Like you are looking for an answer you already have and just need confirmation.

I see your reliance on path and destination as a metaphor for the status quo and change misplaced. Democracies can and do change and the fact that not every group has the exact same goal does not prevent democracy.

It may make it more complex and slower because the groups must find common ground and develop shared goals. Or perhaps one group will simply dominate the other as we see in the US. Obviously there will be conflict if the groups have polar opposite demands.

I find your distinction between one party and no party just silly. China is not a democracy at all. The supreme power is invested in a autocrat. Of course, you could argue the US is very similar and depending how this next election plays out it may to become a no-party/one party government. I am sure some would argue it already is one party when it comes to serving the wealthy's desires.

China is not driven by a singular goal as what the rural working class wants is completely different than the urban elites want. There is no way everyone in China can be a billionaire. This two-tired society is non-homogeneous by nature.

This new world is dominated by corporate interests. The wealthy are no longer bound by nations. I see us heading into an increasingly post-nation world for the wealthy with nations purely becoming a tool to control the populace and something that is ignored by the wealthy.

I think every large nation, including the US could be broken up and probably be better off. This concentration of power under the guise of the state in order to control the populace at the benefit of the wealthy is a problem that is happening all over the world as income gaps continue to increase dramatically.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

...also there have always been great divisions in society. Look at Ireland Catholic vs. Protestant. Even in Ontario in the early days of this country each region was very different from the rest.

The main problem that we have now, is that ridings are too big, at 100,000 each. They should be no more than 30,000. That way people really get represented. This would also allow smaller region parties to establish themselves, like in the early days of Canada. It would also allow parties to be more fluid, coming into existing, transforming into another party. Without proper representation people are not represented.

First-Past-The-Post must go, it is not democratic. At the very minimum have runoff elections, even better to automate them with ranked ballots.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think reforms could help with some things and certainly increasing the amount of representatives would reduce corruption by increasing the amount of people to be bribed. I don't feel that popular voting will ever work though because it lends to corruption too easily

While Canada may not be as cooked as the US is, I can't help the feeling that they have bought into Neo liberalism completely. This is pretty much incompatible with democracy in my opinion.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

...neo-liberalism goes away when ridings get smaller. People focus on solving local issues. Currently with such big ridings, anything local and of importance doesn't even get mentioned or solved politically.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

It would be interesting to see if this reform would pay off as much as you think it would. I am in full support.

[–] optimisticturtle@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Honestly your question(s) seem kind of race baiting in a mild way. Like you are looking for an answer you already have and just need confirmation.

It's exactly this. America was at its greatest risk of self-annihilation when it was way whiter than today. Also, America was more multicultural and diverse during its founding than PCC is acknowledging but these types collapse all intraracial diversity into just race and assume that culture is genetically/racially transmitted.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

This is not about racism.

Being 'all White' does not lead to a homogeneous culture. America was at its greatest risk of self-annihilation during the American Civil War, but it must be remembered that this was a clash between two mutually exclusive homogeneous White cultures, each claiming to be democratic, yet democracy completely failed to prevent the civil war. In fact, democratic decisions made WITHIN each of these factions lead to the decision to go to war. This goes directly to the root of my point - does trying to maintain multiple cultures in a democratic nation potentially lead to a polarization of two mutually exclusive factions, leading to the collapse of the democracy? The American Civil War never did end, it continues in the background festering away, and that has lead to the threat to American democracy that we see today. Democracy within each side in the Civil War worked well because the two cultures were homogeneous in their destination, and the vote was used to determine the path each separate culture would take. But democracy completely collapsed into adversarial fighting when the two cultures tried to work as one Nation. The American Civil War should never have happened - each side should have been given the democratic freedom to chose their own destination. The Civil War resulted because the North refused to allow the South to determine their own destination in a democratic process, over-ruling the democratic decision of the South through military means.

Canada has tried to avoid this clash of cultures through the invocation of 'distinct nation' status to Quebec, in a system that allows the people of Quebec to determine their own destination. For instance, civil law in Quebec follows the Napoleonic Code, whereas civil law in the rest of Canada follows the British Common Law system.

Also, being of one race is not necessary for a homogeneous culture. Early Roman Catholicism unified much of Europe into one homogeneous culture driven by the Catholic religion, even though it covered people of many races and ethnicities.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can a non-homogeneous democracy compete with a homogeneous? Do you think the US has competed successfully considering they have been non-homogeneous for awhile now.

There is a difference between a multicultural population, and a democratic multicultural population. The difference is in the degree to which the enfranchised voting list is multicultural, the degree to which the multiculturalism can be expressed at the voting both. Israel is a case in point - multicultural to the extent that Palestinians can live in Israel, but definitely not a multicultural democracy since they can not vote.

America grew stronger in the early 1900's, a time when the voting franchise was effectively limited to 'white males'. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920, and America had a singular destination - pure Capitalism. There was also really only one party that was allowed in America during this time - the Capitalist party. It had, however, two divisions that differed in how Capitalism was to be achieved.

Now in America, capitalism and socialism are different destinations, espoused by different parties. They are a distinctly different culture. Trying to determine which destination to aim for in a democratic electoral process, in my opinion, will result in a non-productive society. As the two cultures of socialism and capitalism became voting issues in an America with an expanded voting franchise, democracy faced an inevitable stalemate and the country descended into political polarization and now economic stagnation. If you don't think it is cultural, just tale a close look at the breakdown of American voter characteristics and how each demographic votes.

A society that is almost exclusively capitalist, but determines the economic policies that drive that capitalism (such as policies on competition) through voting, is a workable democracy in my opinion. That was America in the early 1900's.

China today has a common destination (universal socialism) but the population can determine the path to move towards that socialism (exclusively state ownership or limited private investment) through the electoral process. That is a homogeneous population with a common destination, but a democratic process to determine the path.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

You seem to be splitting hairs between multicultural population and a democratic multicultural population. How much representation does it take to get to the democratic part. Also, what about recent studies that highlight that US policies appear almost completely unaffected by the majority of the population.

In this respect the US would not qualify as a democratic multicultural population. The only time your vote matters is if you vote with the ruling class. In fact, the US government is actually structured to ignored the working class from the start with the Senate, Executive Branch, and Judiciary all designed to thwart the Congress.

Your point about Isreal and Palestinians is strange considering that Palestinians are not actually Israeli citizens. Not sure if you mean non-jewish Israeli citizens, if so I suppose it makes some sense.

There is no socialism destination for the US. If you lived here you would know socialism is a bad word. We even purged all of our leftists during McCarthyism. The destination is not capitalism either. It is has been fascism since before there was a word for it.

I don't agree with your appraisal of China. Their destination is Neo authoritarianism like most of Asia right now. You could argue the US is heading this same way.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

A multicultural population becomes a multicultural democratic population when the various multicultural factors are given the right to vote. If you can not vote, you can not participate in the 'democracy'.

George Soros certainly thinks there is a socialist destination for America. Bernie Sanders pretty much considers that there is a socialist destination as well, if only Americans would vote for it.

The democratic multicultural nature of America is strongest at the local level. City mayoralty, for instance.

I am not surprised you don't agree with my appraisal of China. To do so would mean that you have taken the time to research and study modern China, not just accept the American propaganda machine as the truth. They have a well defined democratic process, strongest at the local level. Their election process is hierarchical in nature, progressing up from local to national.

[–] themaninblack@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Nice outing yourself. China’s so-called democracy would be stronger if it were a republic so that minorities, like the Uyghurs, would not get trampled in the process.

Find another place that makes you feel righteous and powerful and accepted. You can find friends volunteering in the community, for example.

And fuck the United States, so we’re clear where I’m coming from too.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago

Perhaps you should research the term 'Autonomous Chinese Province' with respect to regional boundaries in China. That would seem to make these regions of China a 'Republic' as in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Statehood is more than just a political boundary. Being a Republic is no guarantee of anything related to the term 'democracy'. But making broad accusations of what is happening in China without actually knowing what is truly happening in China is certainly not conducive to intelligent discourse.

The situation regarding the Uyghur population in China is a lot more nuanced than 'they are trampled on by China'. There is a lot more to the Uyghur narrative than the one driven by the Chinese response to a minority of Uyghur Islamic Terrorists within the general Uyghur population, yet the Western media goes no further than the popular mischaracterization of painting all Uyghurs in general with the same 'oppressed population' brush.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That you for clarification about your view of voting. I also think it is important to consider how effective the vote is. As I mentioned a study done about US policy indicates strongly that there is almost zero correlation between what people want and actual policy.

https://pnhp.org/news/gilens-and-page-average-citizens-have-little-impact-on-public-policy/

This has much wider implications than just US politics as this same tendency can be see in other countries as well. It also shows us that democracy is actually a window dressing for fascism (at least in the US).

I don't mean to be dismissive, but if the best you can do to show socialism is accepted in the US is to cite Bernie and George then I would have to say that I respectfully disagree. They are the outliers and not even to the left at that. George is a straight up billionaire and Bernie hasn't mentioned anything about giving workers ownership unless you count capilitistic driven ideas like ESOPs.

Having worked at the local, state, and federal level in the US I can definitely say that once it reaches the federal level the average citizen has next to no power to affect change.

I am not surprised you are in denial about China. I run into this with a lot of campists. I am not sure how you could look at Xi and not see an autocrat. Asia's march into neo authoritarianism is well documented in Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. Frankly, denying this shows a lack of candor that makes conversations convoluted at best.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I believe I made clear that my position was that democracy can only thrive when the population is homogeneous with a common goal and the only thing that is to be decided is the path. When the population is on the same wavelength of the government, then all the people believe the government is going in the right direction. When the population is diverse, there will always be the majority that thinks the government is going in the wrong direction, although this majority will never agree to what the right direction is. Thus, the majority who feel the government is not going in the right (their desired) direction, will consider that their vote has no effect on public policy. This is inevitable in a diverse society.

I am sure that your denial of what is actually happening in China is so persuasive to you. I can see how this would happen. You confuse an autocratic leader with a decisive effective leader. I can see how you might think that a leader that oversees the implementation of the will of the people in a decisive manner as 'autocratic', but you miss my point. If the homogeneous society as a whole wants exactly what Xi is delivering, and Xi is delivering exactly what the society wants, and the society is solidly behind him, that is not autocratic, that is completely bureaucratic in its efficiency. When the destination is completely agreed upon, the most efficient way to get there is through bureaucracy, and Xi s the penultimate bureaucrat in the penultimate bureaucratic system. But bear no illusion, when Xi stops delivering what the people want and demand, he is toast.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 0 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the clarification. I do feel in some ways this is just a complex argument for racism and I have heard similar intricate arguments just like this to justify racism. This may not be your intention, but I think it is important for you to know this for the future.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/05/19/people-diverse-areas-community-identity-supersedes-racial-ethnic-differences

What we find sociologically is that your "common sense" about homogeneous society is anything but.

“As diversity increases, people paradoxically perceive social groups as more similar,”

Essentially a non homogeneous society will increasingly accept other social groups as normal. This kind of puts your entire theory on its head, although I do see the point you are getting at.

Your denialism over China is both bizarre and telling. You are definitely acting as a campist as I had guessed already. I don't have a dog in this fight so to speak, but I am also not here to be gaslit by an authoratarian apologist.

The reality is China is an just another oligarchy. They have probably the largest wealth gap of any nation in history and are pumping out more billionaires than the US the last three years. They are now the fourth largest supplier of arms to war torn nations and they have a long history of imperialistic endeavors.

China is great because of the US, not despite it. They have both conspired together to create wealth for an extreme minority. Trying to bill China as the lesser of evils is pretty silly even if I would generally agree just because the US in particular has caused more death and destruction than any nation in history.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

On the contrary, it is your response that verges on racism towards the Chinese. You completely deny that they have the intelligence and the mental ability to create a great nation on their own, that because of their backwardness they can not be trusted nor allowed to determine their own form of governance, but that they need the wisdom and guidance of the White West to tell them how to run their own country. Painting the Chinese as 'just another oligarchy' is to deny their entire thousands of years old history, culture and identity, dismissing it because it is not a superior 'White narrative'.

You are repeatedly putting words in my mouth that I did not say, deliberately changing my narrative with false claims to make your point. I never used the phrase 'common sense' nor did I ever claim that a homogeneous society needs to be of the same race or ethnicity. The predominance of Catholicism throughout Europe during the late Roman Empire led to a homogeneous society, while it governed over many ethnic groups and races. Catholicism itself is decidedly NOT democratic, but it can be claimed that the origins of the concept of Statehood and early democracy had its roots in the clash between two autocratic homogeneous religions during the Thirty Years War.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

What in the literal fuck are you talking about. I was pointing this out for your benefit because you are basically race baiting with your bullshit. I am not playing a game of I am rubber and you are glue like a child that you seem to want to act like.

It is obvious you are some kind of simp for China. I greatly appreciate the Chinese people, but I will admit I don't care for their government. The fact that you can't separate a rural farmer from the political elite running their country shows you have exactly zero capability of judgement.

How dare you bring up Catholicism as a religion who united people under a homogeneous rule. Did you fucking miss the Spanish Inquisition and then the Pope laying the foundation for racism in Europe leading to the fucking slave trade.

Here is the definition of homogeneous.

"population where the majority of people share similar cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious backgrounds."

You can't even follow the definitions of a word in your twisted race baiting mind. Get the fuck out of here with your garbage.