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 2 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 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.