Does racial makeup of society, that is, the average racial background of the individual in said society...

Does racial makeup of society, that is, the average racial background of the individual in said society, matter for the success of an economic plan?
Also, does the culture of a society matter for said success? This question might be kind of redundant because if race doesn't matter, and culture is the flower of the race, then culture doesn't matter, or is culture simply random and not natural to certain peoples?

Other urls found in this thread:

Likely not
an efficient planned economy would take those variables into its calculation


It's like how Tarzan didn't have a beard because since he was actually English and therefore inherently civilized.

Lee Kwan Yew said Singapore could not have become developed if it wasn't majority Han Chinese and that there was a limit to how much education could do for people that are inherently less intelligent.

It's definitely true some cultures are more centered on educarion as a value. I believe such questions will become moot once genetic engineering fully develops.

Race can't be theoretically excised from the picture but it has no significant or even minor role.

Culture is a little bit different. Culture and action are cyclic feedback loops, economic development brings culture and culture fosters general development. It should be clear that culture is first and foremost a product of relations of production.

If that was the case, ultrarich countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar where natives (not just the elites, but the average person has guaranteed luxuries) don't even have to work wouldn't be the most reactionary shitholes on Earth.

Yes. Culture of a society is everything when it comes to cohesiveness and affinity to certain economic activity and mode.

Whether it can be changed unrestricted of people's ethnic background is an open question.

If those things exist, you plan for them. To rationally plan the economy is simply the rational thing to do no matter what.

They are the most reactionary shitholes on earth BECAUSE they are so ultrarich: they are basically slave societies were the citizen doesn't really have to work. Why the fuck would a member of that caste system where you are better off decide to break it?

On the shift from individual to no-self post-enlightened blob, from DEFCON25

Yes, demographics is destiny.

Race only really matters insofar as it's a social construct and a factor in culture. Other than some outlier medical shit like black burgers being prone to certain disorders like sickle cell, or literal cosmetic stuff like different complexions or hair types affecting what products are useful, I can't imagine biological race mattering. As for the cultural side, I think it's mostly the tension between smaller cultures trying to maintain their identity vs. assimilation into a larger whole. It's not just acceptable, it's actually good for local culture to exist because it increases variety and bonds people together in their area, which has all kinds of benefits ranging from general social cohesion to more effective defense militarily speaking. Also it encourages people to move more so they can visit different places. If we have freedom of movement, people can find places to go that are the most suited to their particular skills, abilities, tastes, needs, etc. Tourism wouldn't just be about broadening experience, but also looking for potential homes. And with more frequent movement, locals would be incentivized to interact more with tourists and help put different local cultures on terms with each other.

Animefags get shot.

I can :( Genetics is the only "material condition" that matters, culture is only a byproduct of race. A world without borders is hell on earth, there would be an endless war.

Have you ever heard the word "geography" before?

Stupid fuck

Move to Detroit.

I have; tell me what's the reason most of Africa is in such a bad condition? Having no winter means you can farm all year-long, what excuse do they have? My hypothesis is that, if the population of Europe and Africa were switched around, Africa would prosper and Europe would be a shit-hole.

No, and fuck you.

The population of Europe in Africa would eventually become African and the population of Africa in Europe would eventually become European dumbass.

Deal with the limitations of your ideology or change your ideology. You're not going to CRISPR/murder over half the niggers on earth, figure it out.


Why are you suddenly bringing up evolution, when we're talking about economy? And no, it wouldn't.

control your fucking variables nigga

Is that a joke? Do you know what colonialism is?
Africa's fucking huge, you can't treat it as a monolith regarding farming or almost anything else.
I think you should pull your head out of your ass and go read, probably starting with On the Origin of Species.

Because the person I was addressing from what I could tell was speaking about race managing land, problem is he doesn't understand land is connected to race as he tries pushing his pseudoscience.

Whitey and Chinaman digging diamonds makes black babies die of AIDS?
You have a point, but the example still works.
Again, evolution is barely related to the topic at hand.

>Whitey and Chinaman digging making Africans dig diamonds makes black babies die of AIDS? Africa poor and unable to take care of itself, including proper health care. Also, portioning land based on colonial interests while disregarding local concerns is a recipe for perpetual warfare once colonialism retreats.

Africa is not naturally suited to growing the types of plants that Europe or Asia are. The ecology of those regions shaped not only the biology of the people living there but also the types of societies they could create, because everything was organized around agriculture, the practice that sustained life the most directly. Wheat-like farming in Europe produced a different sort of culture from rice-like farming in Asia produced a different sort of culture from not farming in Africa. I am dumbing this down as much as possible.

Evolution means Africans are biologically the most suited people on the planet to living in Africa. The people who are biologically the most suited to any area are the indigenous population. That's because their ancestors have spent more time there than anyone else's. Hilariously, this effect is more pronounced in Africa than anywhere else in the world (though it varies across the HUGE continent). Your issue is with culture, not race-as-biology.

Hong Kong once was a British colony, yet they became prosperous. They maintained the infrastructure built by the British and managed to improve on it, they learned from them and made the knowledge their own. Watch the documentary "Empire of dust", the infrastructure left by European colonialists is destroyed, the locals have learned nothing and are worse off than when they were colonies. Who is supposed to take care of Africans and give them proper health care, if not Africans themselves? Your standard of proper health care is unattainable there, exactly because of race, and by extension culture, not because of the climate or geography. The real crime is giving "humanitarian aid" to these people, it makes them breed to uncontrollable levels, which leads to more starvation and disease.

The type of crops you grow has little bearing on your culture.

That could very well be the case; it doesn't matter because civilization exists, since people don't live in the wild, they don't have to fend off the elements only relying on their body being adapted to the current climate they live in.

Unironically read Settlers. It's might be exactly the sort of thing to show you how narrow your viewpoint is, because it's wrong for a lot of the same reasons you are.

What, the game series?? Or is there a book named "Settlers"?

Yes it does. It does have an impact of the way you work the soil and that type of work set foundations for cultural practices.
Literal base and supersrtucture.

If your economic plan is to raise taxes on a good primarily assoicated with a racial good then maybe? Like if your plan was to tax asian vegetables i imagine the asian population would be important.

Right, let's say it does. How can it produce a culture that is unable to feed the people of respective culture?

It need a little help to reach that outcome.
You shape the local economy to be extremely dependent on your own, you wreck local community fabric and cultural capital, you set up an educational system to make a obedient and dumb workforce rather than crititical thinkers.

I think he was refering more to the thought that races have different behaviors and needs and that thus the racial makeup of a country would affect the success of the economic plan, if said economic plan was not adapted to take in account the race.


Most Han Chinese were opium addicted brainlets with habits and life spans worse that sub-saharan africans piror to gommunism.

This is quite true, many Chinese nationalists were absolutely assblasted that niggers being shuffled around colonial worksites at gun-point lived better than the average Chinese.

The face of poverty in the 1930s was Chinese and not African, American mothers would tell their children that there were starving kids in China to get them to eat and so on. Even colonized India had a better standard of living than China despite the Empire’s home-sourced supply of coolies and a population plagued by an insane degree of spooks.

Development is not whether you like gays, it's usually the quality of your education.

Settlers doesn't say anything remotely similar to what he says, in form or otherwise.

It took two generations to discipline and educate the Chinese. Good enough or could be better?

Races affect culture, culture affects society, therefore races affect society.

Seems like people are getting all caught up in their spooks again.
It is less about genetics in itself, it is more about how conditioning favoured certain genetic traits. The human always revolved around hunting, which meant that physique and hunting skills were all that was required of them. All you had to remember was what the different animals did, and how to kill them. Gathering food is no problem either, Africa is a prosperous land as long as the human population remains small. There is no real pressure exerted on the population from nature itself. Only from other humans. Which only teaches hostility and tribal conditions.

Look at the people who left Africa and at some point learned how to use farming and animals to their advantage. They were taught to be patient, careful. They had to save seeds from the harvest and use them again. It requires an understanding of how nutrients deplete from the land, and how to replenish them. The same goes for their treatment of animals. Instead of killing and enjoying the meat, they understood that it was better to keep them alive. Go further north and farming also requires an understanding of the changing seasons. All of these aspects teach the passage of time, patience, and dependency. Go even further and the first large cities develop. Creating the first instances of large social structures including social production laying foundations for the first economies.

All these things didn't happen during a few hundred years. It required a long period of conditioning, changing the success basis for human development from brute strength and endurance to teamwork, patience, and care. If you take all Africans and put them through the same process, then in a few generations they would be no different then any other "developed" civilization. Right now there exist plenty of people of African descent who are able to function well. It is about conditioning more than genetics. And that falls under material conditions. And no, a continent like Africa will not create the material conditions for the creation of a developed civilization. And again no dumping a bunch of people into a civilized world will not change it. What we do in Africa right now, will not help it. Only a few talented Africans will be able to benefit from the Western presence. While the rest of the Africans will become dependent on Western aid, fight in Western-funded wars for oil and diamonds, or get caught up in a Western monetary scam due to a corrupt government.