Democracy and socialism can only work when there is a high degree of ethnic and cultural homogeneity

how do you respond?

Other urls found in this thread:

pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
welt.de/politik/deutschland/article156269271/Islam-Gebote-stehen-ueber-dem-Gesetz-findet-fast-die-Haelfte.html
youtube.com/watch?v=hocLdj1lGug
urplay.se/program/199001-nationen-skitaret-1917
adlibris.com/se/bok/perspektiv-pa-historien-2-3-9789140665980
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Make everyone brown.

...

This is correct in the sense that communism can only work if the vast majority of people are pro-communist.

however, "ethnic and cultural homogeneity" is just a code word for "no black people" with Holla Forums types, so the essential claim here is that "racism is natural" or something, or "communism provokes racism" when in fact it does the opposite, it will alleviate ethnic tensions far more than capitalism would ever dream

pretty much this.

Sage and hide.

By deporting the troublesome ethnicties to Siberia again?

Cultural homogeneity=/=racial homogeneity. There’s some black people who live in small towns in New England, but from there culture they have almost everything in common with other New Englanders, and little in common with most American blacks.


nice bait


Exactly. The Chechnian ethnicity should be wiped from the face of the earth. Same for the Ukrainian to.

Holla Forums would just go
and then you go

this is all they mean, and i'm not sure any response will change their opinion as it's their pathalogy

Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone makes a pretty compelling argument that diversity reduces social trust, civic participation, etc.

I don't even necessarily think its a race thing (though that does play into it) - look at the concerns in the UK over the influx of east euros; presumably to most Brits having neighbours babbling incomprehensibly in Slavistani is not much of a step above neighbours babbling in Arabic or Nigerian

Most Brits like the Euros.

USSR, Yugo, China, and Cuba are all very ethnically diverse.

I guess real socialism works after all.

"culture" is just a proxy for racism, culture needs to be eradicated completely

I disagree.

/thread

idiotic/myopic answers.
this is an actual problem. t. someone living in a country with a muslim minority. recent polls show that a good share of this minority considers it a desireable political goal to live under sharia law. good look trying to build socialism with these people. feel free to accuse me of being a Holla Forumsyp, racist, or whatever now. op raised a legit point.

[citation needed]

There is no need to respond because such a claim lacks any basis. It would be like responding to the claim that the moon is pink

So they follow a shitty version of the religion. If they followed a less shitty version of it, would the results be the same? If the answer is no, then your premise is false. Incidentally, I don't give a fuck about culture and I wouldn't mind if it were homogeneous, but your argument is weak because it doesn't account for the huge number of non-aggressive cultures, Muslim subgroups included. As for the race claim, that's just retarded.

pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
My country is not on this list unfortunately give me some more time to dig. Still the study is worth reading.


i never talked about "race". i agree that the majority of muslims are friendly and non-vioelnt people. i agree that many muslims are secular. i agree that there are many sane interpretations of islam and i have nothing whatsoever against them. if you ignore the fact that saudi arabia, turkey and other major muslim countries are supporting and agrressively spreading intolerant and autoritarian versions of islam and that these schools of thought are gaining ground massively in the muslim world then you are turning a blind eye to reality and discussing this matter any more is pointless.

Fuck off you spooked retard. If you ask any religious person they would want everyone to follow their religion, there's some Catholic MP in the UK who said women shouldn't get abortions and yet the same people who would lambast him if he was a muslim are applauding him.

how impolite
not everybody disagreeing with you is a spooked retard, son
i never defended catholic fundamnetalista or fundamentalists of any other sect, creed, or denomination. learn to read. let me finish this post by quoting a great contemporary philosopher: "Fuck off you spooked retard."

welt.de/politik/deutschland/article156269271/Islam-Gebote-stehen-ueber-dem-Gesetz-findet-fast-die-Haelfte.html
Here are numbers for germany. Still not my country, but closer. Try google translate.

...

Yes, Soviet style socialism was the thing that stopped ethnic divisions and conflicts from occurring in a very diverse region, once socialism disappeared ethnic conflicts began. It's literally evidence that completely disproves OP's claim

that's a creative way of spelling auhoritarian one-party police state.

Sure, I don't think Soviet was socialist either, but it's probably what OP and all other normies in this thread mean when they talk about socialism

but that's the whole point of this thread. of course you can supress religious fundamentalists and violent nationalist fanatics by means of sheer force. just introduce mass surveillance and put them all in prison. once such an apparatus of supression is unleashed though, you'll most likely end up in a scenario very similar to the stalinist purges. because once the fundamentalists/racists/nationalists are done for, the paranoia of the rulers and the desire of the the supression apparatus bureaucrats to stay relevant will direct the fury of the system against internal critics/dissidents. good luck building a democratic and socialist society in such a scenario.

Introduce an overculture so everyone identifies as human/prole over anything else, removing all other overcultures over generations. People may have underculture identities such as "muslim" or "greek" but won't think of others as inferior due to culture because of overcultural hegemony.

the current U.S. is a whole hell of a lot more of a panopticon than the Soviet Union ever was.

That's true. But if we're talking about the historical definition of socialism, that the workers should own and control the means of production, then it would be very effective in overcoming ethnic divisions. This is because cooperative labor is probably one of the most effective, if not the most effective way of integration. If you meet face to face with your coworker every day and cooperate on solving problems that affects both your communities in a society built on mutual aid instead of domination and competition, then you're not going to bother if he's muslim or christian

I never defended the the current u.s. and i agree with your assessment of the surveillance situation. however i feel that this does't render the points i made irrelevant.

Yeah, until Stephen Colbert gets sent to a labor camp in Alaska for insulting Trump I'm going to ignore facile comparisons like that between the two

Actually, I addressed that by saying they are shitty sects. I agree with that and I think those tendencies would have to be absent in people who want to live peacefully together. The claim, however, was that cultural diversity is bad in and of itself, which it isn't. You just stated that many Muslims are peaceful and secular, ergo, there may be cultural diversity without the bad subsets of cultures getting involved.

ah yes, the rebellious dissident Stephen Colbert! If he's not persecuted, then nobody is!

why do you keep mistaking me por a Holla Forumsyp? "race" and "ethnical purity" are irrelevant categories to me. i never claimed or insinuated that cultural diversity is a bad thing. why the heck do you keep implying that? i'm starting to get a bit tired.

one last time: i stated that it's a documented fact that a big part of muslims wants to live under sharia law. this also applies to muslims living in europe. i further claim that co-existing with such a group of people is challenging because under sharia there is no place for a secular, man-made law. it goes without saying that building a socialist society with people who have such a mindset is impossible. what i wanted to discuss is how to deal with this situation without resorting to mass surveillance/police oppression etc. do you have any constructive ideas? i'd love to hear them. do you want to talk about your postmodern americanisms like "race", "gender", "people of color"? feel free to do it, but i won't respond.

No. Read my post:

thanks for pointing me to your post. if i understand you correctly it boils down to: work together on the same goals, talk to each other, get to know each other, realize you have more in common than you thought, realize religious doctrine is not so important after all, coexist peacefully. hope i got you right, i have no intention to twist your words. i like this way of thinking. this apporach will probably work for a few people, maybe even for many. might well be that this is the way to isolate the extreme radicals.

thing is, how do you deal with the hardcore salafist/wahabi fundamentalists who consider non muslims subhuman to the point that they only shake hands with their lefts hand (that's the one they wipe their ass with) with non-muslims? before you accuse me of being anti muslim, the same applies to extreme white supremacists who refuse shake hands with a black guy for example. should go without saying.
in other words, how do you deal with massively intolerant groups of people?

one more thought. what if it doesn't work? what if the people you work with and talk to don't change their minds? what if they continue to desire to live under sharia law? would you be fine with that and allow them to do that?

It means nothing, it's like an ambition in an ideal world.

i strongly disagree. look at the history of saudi arabia. their ambition to living in an ideal world started with mass killing all dissenters and ended up in the islamo fascist shithole that we see today.

wow great history lesson user thanks

I whisper to him…
HELL YEAH NIGGER

Yeah you understood me correctly
I think wahabism is a creation of very specific circumstances, such as war and endless flows of petrodollars, such tendencies of islam wouldn't spring up under socialism. But if wahabism would appear then I think the libertarian socialists in YPG controlled areas have right idea, wahabists are either shot or displaced

I don't think that's very likely, but there would be no place for religious fundimentalism in a hypothetical socialist society

wow great argument thanks

For all the talk about how superior this board is compared to Holla Forums there seem to be many ideological dogmatists and naive multiculturalists here.
If you want a solidary society where people cooperate and help each other, all people need to see themselves as part of a big family, they need to feel a connection with each other, a "unifying identity" so to speak.
So that when they encounter someone who is desperate and needs help they think: "there is a fellow being who belongs to my ingroup, of course I will help this person" instead of "this person is a stranger/enemy to me, why should I care about his/her fate?".
And this solidarity absolutely cannot exist if there are fundamental antagonisms between the people when it comes to societal rules.
Also in general it is understood that the more the people have in common with each other, the easier it is for them to empathize with each other and the easier it is for them to feel solidarity.
The whole concept of class consciousness and class solidarity is based on this. But if there are many antagonisms between the people, it is difficult to unify them into a mass movement.

...

killing, raping or genital mutilation for whatever reason is not "culture". you can hold on to actual "culture" and still ban behaviors like this. you're confusing everything together because you're retarded.

But the antagonisms between people are overcome through economic systems based on solidarity and cooperation instead of domination and competition. For example, the reason scandinavian welfare states have high levels of social solidarity is because of the welfare state, not the other way around. The system didn't spring into being because people magically trusted each other before hand.

Multicultural communities have existed (peacefully) since the classical era, likewise civil wars and strife have taken place in homogeneous societies.
French revolution, American revolution, American wars of Independence, Chinese rebellions of the 19th century, Revolutions of 1848, Chinese Civil War, etc. All these were first rooted in material conditions.

Which won't happen and it can't happen because we are limited in the amount of people that we can actually remember and have close relations with. Nationalism was a way to entice the new proletariat to serve the interests of the bourgeois in the aftermath of the abolition of serfdom.
A sense of community is much more related to a concrete relationship you share with other people, than weird abstractions such as "Nations". I can identify the people that are part of my community, can you do the same for all the people in your nation?

>And this solidarity absolutely cannot exist if there are fundamental antagonisms between the people when it comes to societal rules.
Those social antagonisms are themselves the result of poverty, alienation and other material hardships. People don't just kill each other because they're 'evil', but out of desperation.

The idea of class consciousness is based on the realization of your own material condition and how your interests are represented in the dominant system. It's not about speaking the same language or celebrating the same holidays.

holy shit you didn't get at all what he meant to say did you? stop posting anytime.

that's an interesting claim. to you have any proof? appealing to the authority of materialist philosophers doesn't count as proof btw, i'd like to see some arguments, preferably made by you and not by someone from an artifact ridden info graph.

You're putting the cart before the horse here. How can you even establish a "economic systems based on solidarity and cooperation" when people are at each others throats because of fundamental disagreements on how people should live their lives.
In order to create a socialist system, the shared class interests of the people must exceed the cultural/ideological antagonisms between them.
The high levels of cultural/ideological homogenity in the scandinavian states allowed the establishing of welfare systems in the first place. You cannot do the same thing between the balkan nations. A person of group A who absolutely hates people of group B to death surely doesn't want a person of group B to receive his/her welfare money.


I'm not a nationalist and I don't deny that the material conditions are the primal source of conflicts or that the social antagonisms will decrease once everyone has their material needs met.
What I'm trying to say is that in order to build a solidary revolutionary movement that engages in class war, the cultural antagonisms between the people mustn't be too great compared to the class interest in the first place.
History has shown us that cultural antagonisms have been very successfully used by the ruling class to divide working class people and divert their thoughts from their shared class interests.
The ideologies born from the social superstructure can be way more sturdy than many marxists like to admit.
My problem is with people who act as if cultural antagonisms are completely neglectable when you build a revolutionary movement, as these naive multiculturalists do.

Democracy and socialism were best implemented in societies without ethnic and cultural homogeneity, thus it is empirically incorrect.

I just wrote an essay on the emergence of the Swedish welfare state. I'm not going to re-borrow all the research material as proof so you're going to have to trust my word. During the emergence of industrialism, the working class was as you would say "culturally homogenous" but still extremely fragmented in the cities. It got to an extent that if you walked into a neighborhood that was not your own you'd get beaten due to the rivalry. It was only the emergence of spontaneous class struggle and organized union struggle that paved the way for the social democratic project, as it was sold off as a peace treaty between the capitalists and the union leaders. Only after a few decades of the scandinavian model did we see the level of social solidarity we're used to today(even if that solidarity is now being torn apart with the neoliberal dismantling of working class power and unity).

Not the same poster, but that just doesn't do. Even if what you say makes sense.
Can you at least point us in a general direction? It sounds interesting.

Why does that have to have anything to do with race? We need a unifying worker identity. Every citizen is a brother or sister who will work together to build a better future.

youtube.com/watch?v=hocLdj1lGug

"…and we decided to all go there, together!"

I never said that it has to be or even should be about race. A strong unifying worker identity is indeed very important. But this worker identity must exceed cultural antagonisms for it to work.

All the sources are in Swedish, I'll post the ones I remember:

urplay.se/program/199001-nationen-skitaret-1917

adlibris.com/se/bok/perspektiv-pa-historien-2-3-9789140665980

''Hans Nyström - Hungerupproret
1917 (1994)''

I also used some other basic history books about Swedish history but I don't remember the titles since I wrote the essay last term. That and I read a lot of old newspapers that you can access through local archives if you're a Swedefag.

Thx.

Wrong. Democracy is fundamentally flawed and will inevitably fail in the long run no matter how homogeneous the society is.