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 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 19 minutes 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 1 hour 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.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

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.

[–] themaninblack@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour 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 7 minutes 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.