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.
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.
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.
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 Hundred Years War.
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.
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.
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 Hundred Years War.