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 month ago (10 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 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 1 month 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.

load more comments (8 replies)