4 ms·
Democracy requires that people view themselves as part of a singular group; we might all have different interests and priorities, so each citizen might want dif
by servo_sausage 10mo ago
Democracy requires that people view themselves as part of a singular group; we might all have different interests and priorities, so each citizen might want different policy, but the compromise to the majority should be something that's positive overall.
We are not so far into the multicultural experiment (in the literal sense where distinct self contained cultural groups can exist in one nation), and it's becoming clear that it doesn't really work. You get endless cases of representatives chosen based on cultural groups, policies where one group wins at the cost of the whole, and lower trust in the system generally.
This is complicated by the messaging that multiculturalism is the same as anti-racism. This has been such a successful campaign that nationalism even being an acceptable idea is one of the major dividing points between parties.
I don't really believe that it's resolvable without some kind of major external factor.
- donkeybeer 10mo agoWhat has nationalism and religion ever given us other than bloodshed? Nationalism is the problem. If nationalism didn't exist people won't have an inclination to fight over racial lines. Destroying nationalism will solve half the worlds conflicts. Destroying religion should deal with the remaining 90%.
- Ekaros 10mo agoSo if not for nationalism. Why not roll over and let the other country take over you and then join their democracy? A single world government ruling over all the land?
- donkeybeer 10mo agoThey have a right to self defense like anyone else, illegal aggressors should be killed. Nationalism as in racialism. I have no problem with defining a country on principles you have agree to follow, in fact its one of the best forms of countries. I am ambivalent to apathetic to "Iran" remaining "Iranian race" or "France" remaining "French race".
- Ekaros 10mo agoHaven't defining country over "principles" been proven also as failed thing? Just look at most recent example. A illegal invasion of foreign country. Wouldn't you now agree that principles that that country is build on must be wrong and evil and world would be better off without any other country that says they rely on them?
- donkeybeer 10mo agoI will admit that the USA is a bit of a funny one. It has in some ways been nice to the people living there but its foreign policy has been very violent. I'd say again though its more of an indifferent to race reason they do all this bs in the middle east and latino countries.
- donkeybeer 10mo agoI'd gladly agree all other countries should disengage from and route around Trump America because its sliding into ethnicism and its attendant stupidities. But I see your broader point how the USA has been having foreign adventures even before trump.
- donkeybeer 10mo agoI don't have any problems living in any liberal capitalist democracy. I could be equally as happy living in say Germany as in Canada more or less. But then again, your example scenario is funny, how many times have liberal capitalistic democracies been attacking other liberal capitalistic democracies ever even happened vs wars fought over religion and nationalism since times immemorial and wars fought over fascism/nazism/communism in the WW2?
- donkeybeer 10mo agoYour example scenario is even funnier, show me one single currently ongoing conflict that involves two liberal democratic capitalist countries. Israel: religion/nationalism Russia: nationalism Yemen: nationalism/racialism etc etc
- Ekaros 10mo agoHow would you now define USA? Surely it is not anymore liberal democratic capitalist country?
- donkeybeer 10mo agoIt is sliding toward being a shithole precisely because of the rise of inferior ethnic nationalism. It had less of it relative to other countries until recently.
- servo_sausage 10mo agoNationalism as ideology gives a shared identity, that allows ideas like long term public infrastructure, multgenenrational plans, and efforts to advance the Citizens overall to take root. Why should I want affordable housing for citizens, unless being part of my nation is important? Why should I accept any plan that extends beyond my lifetime? More fundamentally, I believe that when a groups identity is sufficiently fragmented, it's no longer ethical to apply the powers of the state. Since my (and my groups) interests are no longer sufficiently represented. There is no unifying identity, or argument that can be made that allows me to believe a compromise leads to anything good. Religion is a sidetrack; god is dead.
- donkeybeer 10mo agoI don't feel nationalism. I want good public infra, more housing because it simply makes life better. For example, have you ever released anything FOSS? I haven't yet but it is my aspiration to, I don't care which country or person it helps. I will happily support liberal democratic elements whether they be Germans in Germany or blacks in America or any other group. And conversely, I would absolutely fucking hate any of my tax money supporting far right wing elements in my own country/race or otherwise. But I am not stupid enough to deny improvements in my country just to spite these retards.
- servo_sausage 10mo agoSure, I use and contribute to some; and participate in international groups. The key part for me though is the voluntary nature. I can participate as much or as little as I like, and my motivation to participate can be entirely individualistic, and the whole thing still works (more or less). Taxation and policing is not voluntary however; and I frequently see the proceeds going to short term initiatives, that are promoted based on how much they impact some minority group specifically. Advancing one group in a democracy is not often even a neutral action; its entirely possible to use resources so poorly that it's harmful overall. (Both in economic terms, but also in more abstract things like public trust in policing, or tolerance of corruption)
- 10mo ago