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 1 day 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 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 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 22 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 23 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 22 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 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 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 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 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 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 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.