20 years ago would you have thought someone like barack could be elected, if your answer is no, then you can't say the same about your above list. you never know here. our country continually progresses in thoughts and minds. not saying that it couldn't happen there, just it does happen here.
I don't think Isreal is a democracy, hell I don't even think Isreal is a country. I assume you meant Israel, which is some sort of hybrid between a theocracy and democracy. Sort of like a jewish Iran, but less theocratic
Well, here's the probelm. The US has a strong jewish and zionist christian population, politicians usually tend to take the stance of being pro-Israel to try to get elected. Look what Jimmy Carter did a couple of months ago, he retracted past criticisms of Israel and the US policy towards Israel because his nephew was running for Congress and needed votes in a jewish area that was key to the election.
Democracy is one of those things that require more definition QUESTION: Can you have a Democracy if you have a communist economic system? Or is Democracy only obtainable through Capitalism or Socialism? Rocket River
Mikhail Bakunin, one of the true old-school socialists/anarchists used to call Communism "German Authoritarian Socialism". Communism requires a supreme, unquestioned authority, and intolerance of 'wrong thought'. "The Tyranny of the Proletariat": [rquoter] The Marxists profess quite contrary ideas. As befits good Germans, they are worshippers of the power of the State, and are necessarily also the prophets of political and social discipline, champions of the social order built from the top down, always in the name of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the masses upon whom they bestow the honor of obeying their leaders, their elected masters. The Marxists admit of no other emancipation but that which they expect from their so-called People’s State (Volksstaat). [/rquoter] [rquoter] They [the Marxists] maintain that only a dictatorship—their dictatorship, of course—can create the will of the people, while our answer to this is: No dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up. [/rquoter] It operates from the hubris that every other tyrant is evil, but our (communist) tyrant will be good and just. In the most theoretical sense, the head honcho is supposed to willingly give up his absolute power if the people want him to. In practice that doesn't happen. At most, the "central committee" of the hardcore ideologues can remove the leader, though in some cases even that is iffy. So I think really, in practice, true communism can't be democratic, baring some sort of massive genetic engineering to rework human nature.
BTW, I think a more relevant question for this thread is whether Muslim Arabs are realistically barred from any government position. In other words, if a Muslim Arab wants to get a job working as a functionary for the Ministry of Education or as a police officer, or as a teacher, are those positions open to them? I think the answer is that they are practically excluded, and I think it would be a good thing to work towards. However, the subject is not quite as black and white as it might appear. From what I've seen, Muslim Arab Israeli parties appear to mostly be hostile to the general idea of Israel. And if a Jewish Israeli took those same positions, he'd have a hard time getting a job in one of those ministries so I'm not sure it is pure Muslim hate. But at the same time, as long as they are excluded from the greater society, there's no reason for them to embrace the existing power structure. Like I said in another thread, I think the issue is sort of a chicken-and-egg conundrum. A similar example would be black police in the USA. I think in most large city police departments there is no institutional racism, and most minority police officers aren't looking to overthrow the state. But in many cities black police and white police are cliquish and distrustful of each other. It seems like it is a very difficult and messy problem to fix.
Capitalism is as anti-democratic as communism. Concentration of money equals concentration of power. Transatlantic slavery was capitalism in its purest form, exploiting inefficiencies to maximize profit.
I am talking about Communism the Economic system [wealth Distribution] not Communism the Political System Rocket River
They are inseparable. The economic system requires the social system. The economic system requires that authoritarian central control. And the economic system exists only as an adjunct of the social system.
Turks, Algerians, and Pakistanis are all nationalities. Arabs are an ethnicity. You are engaging in a false analogy.
"Turk" very much is an ethnicity. The Pashtu, Balochi and Punjabi of Pakistan are ethnicity, but most Brits can't tell the difference. Similarly, Algerian varieties of Tuareg and Arab are also ethnicity, but French people can't tell the difference.
No, you are thinking of Turkic people. There is a huge difference between that and Turkish people. Then you stated different ethnic groups that make up Pakistan. That is no different than how it is with America. American is not an ethnicity. Again, there are different ethnic groups in Algeria. Simply being Algerian is not enough to identify an ethnic group. Is that Algerian an Arab or a Berber? Remember that Arabs are Semitic and Berbers are Afro-Asiatic.
The thing about Arab parties is that they werent always anti-zionist. Arabs voted routinely for Zionist parties when Israel was formed. And those Arab parties that did exist, were much more moderate in comparison to modern Arab parties in the Knesset. After all they had incentives to moderate back then since they had the actual opportunity to be part of governing coalitions back then. As you said, today they have zero incentive to embrace zionism or moderate their views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There was some talk of Kadima possibly trying to invite Arabs to its coalition after they won the most seats but they ended up deciding not to and consequently Likud formed a coalition. At some point, something has to change if Arabs will ever seriously participate in politics again.
Nope. Turkic is a massive over-group of peoples, including ethnic groups from Eastern Europe to China. But if it makes you feel better, I'll ask "Could a Punjabi become the Prime Minister of England?" or "Could a Berber become Prime Minister of France?" Brits identify people from Pakistan, no matter their ethnicity as "Paki". People from Pakistan identify people from the United Kingdom, be they Welsh, Scottish, or English as "English". People from Palestine identify people from Israel, be they Ashkenazim, Mizrahim, or Sephardic as "Jews".
OK. I understand. Pouhe points out that Capitalism and Democracy are incompatible do you agree with that? Is the only true Democracies . . .Socialist? Rocket River
Yes, a Punjabi could become Prime Minister of England. Unless you believe ethnicity is a major factor in elections. Is it probable? No. Is it possible? Yes. And even then, these are just attempts at deflection by you.
Modern mass-capitalism, yes. There was a sort of early 19th pre-corporate American 'ma and pa' proto-capitalism that seems to be pretty compatable with Democracy. The Ancient Greeks, as far as I can tell, sort of ran the same thing.
Not at all. No deflection whatsoever. England, France, Germany, Israel, etc. are fundamentally democracies structured around a core group of ethnic nationalities. The core Polis of these countries is a like set of ethnic groupings. In fact, that is the whole cores of the states of Germany and Italy weren't anything more than vague concepts of a sort of ethnic nationality 200 years ago. Instead Germany was Prussia, and Baden and Wurtemburg and Bavaria and Saxony and Greater Russ and Lesser Russ and Mecklenburg, and Anhalt and several other kingdoms. Italy was Piedmont, and The Kingdom of Two Sicilies and others. France was Orleans and Alscace-Loraine and Brittany and others. Spain was the Kingdoms of Leon and Arragon, and Castile and others. These countries were conceived and created around ethnicity. The spoils of the Franco-Prussian war and WWI were all about whether the lands of Alsace-Lorraine properly belonged to the new "French" ethnic state or the "German" one. The break-up of The Hapsburg monarchy was all about ethnic Czechs and Croats and Hungarians and Poles not wanting to be ruled by ethnic Germans. The Kings of Prussia and the kings of Southern German states fought about whether the German state would be ruled by Protestant Germans or Catholic Germans. It as just as possible and improbable that a Muslim Israeli would be elected prime Minister of Israel as a Punjabi would be elected Prime Minister of England.
Well if you go there, you might as well call democracy itself laughable. So you think it's possible for a Chinese to be U.S. president? Now people, put down that pipe and face the reality. There is no absolute democracy, unlimited freedom anywhere in the world. It will be suicidal for the Israles to elect an Arab to lead their country. How laughable, haha :grin:
This would lend it self to Socialism Which .. unless I am mistake . . . is ok with Ma and Pa type things but the things that would be the BIG MEGACORPS are government run [or quasi run through heavy regulations] Rocket River Interesting stuff
