Should america balkanize and each community to run their ethno-state or political enclave/state? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Break up america into independent ethnostates/political states?

Yes
6
35%
No
8
47%
I don't know.
3
18%
#15106041
ckaihatsu wrote:Your treatment is very *glib* and superficial since you're *muddling* different political 'camps' together, more than making *distinctions* among them.

There's a *reason* there are different *names*, or 'labels', for these different kinds of politics, but you're disregarding all of that in favor of making a mound of mush.

Wikipedia is your *friend*.


My image was simply to illustrate how I view the relationship between what I view as being the principal ideologies of the current era, not to plot every single political system onto a diagram. I question why you have continued this for so long if you consider me to be so insufferably ignorant.
#15106049
Local Localist wrote:
My image was simply to illustrate how I view the relationship between what I view as being the principal ideologies of the current era, not to plot every single political system onto a diagram. I question why you have continued this for so long if you consider me to be so insufferably ignorant.



No, it's not about one's 'knowledge' or 'ignorance' -- it's more about one's *veracity*.

These matters of political economy are not about *my* opinion, or *your* opinion, or *anyone's* *opinion* -- it's about discerning how the world works in economic and political ways, and being able to *describe* these factors for any given empirical event.

Your diagram is meant to reflect your *opinion*, as in a whim of thought, or a sketch, but I already showed you a critical flaw in its depiction, which you haven't addressed, so you're showing your treatment to be lacking in *objectivity* -- it's not *realistic*.
#15106053
ckaihatsu wrote:No, it's not about one's 'knowledge' or 'ignorance' -- it's more about one's *veracity*.

These matters of political economy are not about *my* opinion, or *your* opinion, or *anyone's* *opinion* -- it's about discerning how the world works in economic and political ways, and being able to *describe* these factors for any given empirical event.

Your diagram is meant to reflect your *opinion*, as in a whim of thought, or a sketch, but I already showed you a critical flaw in its depiction, which you haven't addressed, so you're showing your treatment to be lacking in *objectivity* -- it's not *realistic*.


Maybe the mistake you're making is to assume that I'm not right about everything? :excited:

So, looking at the broader ideologies as you have identified them, obviously your 'revolutionary' idea maps onto my 'socialism' sphere quite neatly. Likewise, I think 'liberal' is used in a similar fashion, though I think I have a broader definition than you do, as I would consider most Americans, for instance, to be fundamentally liberal in their outlook, so my liberal sphere would incorporate much of your 'status quo'. Now, what I find really interesting is that you've described the status quo alternately as 'nationalism'. You seem to use this term in a different sense than I have seen it used elsewhere, but you plot it between liberal and imperial, which, on a linear scale, I would entirely agree with. What I'm not understanding is how the imperialists and the theocrats are between what you call 'nationalist' and what you call 'fascist'. This seems quite jarring to me, as I'm sure you will agree that fascism is intrinsically linked to nationalism.

My diagram has an element of the passage of time in it, as yours does. My 'traditionalist' sphere is essentially a combination of your 'imperialists' and 'religious right'. I have put the traditionalists the furthest to the right because they are fundamentally reactionary. There are many traditionalists who unironically advocate for a return to feudalism, such as G.K. Chesterton, for instance, and where they don't, they still support forms of semi-feudalism, such as with paleolibertarians. Capitalism developed from feudalism, hence my liberal sphere is more progressive than my traditionalist sphere. The reason I have put fascism as more progressive than traditionalism is because that is how I view it. Nationalism, and by extension corporatism, are products of the enlightenment. I don't understand how you could possibly view fascism as being less progressive than theocracy. If anything, *this* seems to be an instance of ideology clouding objectivity.
#15106065
Local Localist wrote:
Maybe the mistake you're making is to assume that I'm not right about everything? :excited:



That's fun.


Local Localist wrote:
So, looking at the broader ideologies as you have identified them, obviously your 'revolutionary' idea maps onto my 'socialism' sphere quite neatly. Likewise, I think 'liberal' is used in a similar fashion, though I think I have a broader definition than you do, as I would consider most Americans, for instance, to be fundamentally liberal in their outlook, so my liberal sphere would incorporate much of your 'status quo'. Now, what I find really interesting is that you've described the status quo alternately as 'nationalism'. You seem to use this term in a different sense than I have seen it used elsewhere, but you plot it between liberal and imperial, which, on a linear scale, I would entirely agree with. What I'm not understanding is how the imperialists and the theocrats are between what you call 'nationalist' and what you call 'fascist'. This seems quite jarring to me, as I'm sure you will agree that fascism is intrinsically linked to nationalism.



I have 'nationalism / status quo' as an ideology, and *also* as a 'principle' (the unreadable blue text in the background of the inverted cones). The 'fascist' ideology, though, corresponds to the *principles* of 'regionalism / exceptionalism', 'god-belief' (meaning *politically*), and 'belief in ethnic superiority', which specifies it as an ideology more distinctly from a generic, historical 'nationalism' (or nationalization).

Imperialists may also be called 'ultra-nationalists', meaning that they want *expansion*-to / expropriation of other lands, and the theocrats are more tied to god-belief as a politicizing force, moreso than the 'host' nation / nationalism itself.

You may find the following related diagram interesting as well:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image



Local Localist wrote:
My diagram has an element of the passage of time in it, as yours does. My 'traditionalist' sphere is essentially a combination of your 'imperialists' and 'religious right'. I have put the traditionalists the furthest to the right because they are fundamentally reactionary. There are many traditionalists who unironically advocate for a return to feudalism, such as G.K. Chesterton, for instance, and where they don't, they still support forms of semi-feudalism, such as with paleolibertarians. Capitalism developed from feudalism, hence my liberal sphere is more progressive than my traditionalist sphere. The reason I have put fascism as more progressive than traditionalism is because that is how I view it.



Okay on the above, but would you like to explain how you conceive of fascism as being 'more progressive'?

(I use derivative 'platforms' for the emergent qualities that you describe here.)


Local Localist wrote:
Nationalism, and by extension corporatism, are products of the enlightenment.



Okay, no disagreement, and I have the depiction of such in my diagram.


Local Localist wrote:
I don't understand how you could possibly view fascism as being less progressive than theocracy. If anything, *this* seems to be an instance of ideology clouding objectivity.



Please elaborate.

Incidentally, I *rarely* see anyone with a diagram of their own, for politics, over *years* of being on discussion boards now (since '08).
#15106105
ckaihatsu wrote:I have 'nationalism / status quo' as an ideology, and *also* as a 'principle' (the unreadable blue text in the background of the inverted cones). The 'fascist' ideology, though, corresponds to the *principles* of 'regionalism / exceptionalism', 'god-belief' (meaning *politically*), and 'belief in ethnic superiority', which specifies it as an ideology more distinctly from a generic, historical 'nationalism' (or nationalization).

Imperialists may also be called 'ultra-nationalists', meaning that they want *expansion*-to / expropriation of other lands, and the theocrats are more tied to god-belief as a politicizing force, moreso than the 'host' nation / nationalism itself.


Right, but I don't see how 'belief in ethnic superiority' would really relate to the graphing of ideology. Mussolini's view of race was fairly normal for his time, and there's no way to *not* classify him as a fascist. While fascism is generally imperialistic, I would say that 'imperialism' as it is traditionally understood in the Western sense belongs more in my 'traditionalist' sphere, as on the international scale, it was practiced originally by semi-feudal powers such as Britain, France and Russia.

ckaihatsu wrote:You may find the following related diagram interesting as well:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism


Okay on the above, but would you like to explain how you conceive of fascism as being 'more progressive'?

(I use derivative 'platforms' for the emergent qualities that you describe here.)


I've explained my view of corporatism in other places, but basically my understanding is that Mussolini justified it as redirecting socialism so that rather than viewing the proletariat as being oppressed by the ruling classes, the entire nation was to be seen as oppressed by other nations. This means that the state is to be granted supreme control over every aspect of the economy, and would work to secure the development of industry and thereby further the progress of the productive forces for its own people at the expense of those in other nations.

How is corporatism more progressive than feudalism? Well, Imperial Japan, for instance, introduced education for women. Nazi Germany abolished inheritance. All the Axis powers provided welfare and social programs for their citizens. In my mind, this is in stark contrast with peasant 'muck farmers' tilling the fields at the behest of their landlords for their entire lives, as Catholic traditionalists would like to return to. This is why I view neither liberalism (capitalism) *nor* fascism to be fundamentally reactionary in the same sense as feudalism is.

I plotted some names if that makes things any more clear:


ckaihatsu wrote:Incidentally, I *rarely* see anyone with a diagram of their own, for politics, over *years* of being on discussion boards now (since '08).


Well, I hope this doesn't undermine my point too much, but I'm actually very young. Perhaps people with properly developed views tend not to be idealistic enough for such endeavours.
#15106117
Local Localist wrote:
Right, but I don't see how 'belief in ethnic superiority' would really relate to the graphing of ideology. Mussolini's view of race was fairly normal for his time, and there's no way to *not* classify him as a fascist. While fascism is generally imperialistic, I would say that 'imperialism' as it is traditionally understood in the Western sense belongs more in my 'traditionalist' sphere, as on the international scale, it was practiced originally by semi-feudal powers such as Britain, France and Russia.



Fascism is only 'generally imperialistic' -- ? Half of Europe *doesn't count* for you?

Would you like to revisit your answer here?

Also, your 'political debt' is building up -- here's a *contradiction* I pointed out in your position, and also a follow-up:


ckaihatsu wrote:
Socialism doesn't overlap with fascism because fascists support the corporatist state, while (workers-of-the-world) socialists are *anti-capitalist*, and call for workers power, and workers councils to collectively control social production.



viewtopic.php?p=15105842#p15105842



ckaihatsu wrote:
Okay on the above, but would you like to explain how you conceive of fascism as being 'more progressive'?



viewtopic.php?p=15106065#p15106065



---


Local Localist wrote:
I've explained my view of corporatism in other places, but basically my understanding is that Mussolini justified it



Why are you accepting the word of a *fascist*?


Local Localist wrote:
as redirecting socialism so that rather than viewing the proletariat as being oppressed by the ruling classes, the entire nation was to be seen as oppressed by other nations.



Yeah, people say all *kinds* of shit, like you, but if the locus is on the *nation-state*, then it's *nationalism*, and not workers-of-the-world socialism.

Here's why *class* is the main divide in society, and I have it at the very *top* of my 'history' taxonomy:


[11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends

Spoiler: show
Image



[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Spoiler: show
Image



---


Local Localist wrote:
This means that the state is to be granted supreme control over every aspect of the economy, and would work to secure the development of industry and thereby further the progress of the productive forces for its own people at the expense of those in other nations.



So you're defending fascism.


Local Localist wrote:
How is corporatism more progressive than feudalism? Well, Imperial Japan, for instance, introduced education for women. Nazi Germany abolished inheritance. All the Axis powers provided welfare and social programs for their citizens. In my mind, this is in stark contrast with peasant 'muck farmers' tilling the fields at the behest of their landlords for their entire lives, as Catholic traditionalists would like to return to. This is why I view neither liberalism (capitalism) *nor* fascism to be fundamentally reactionary in the same sense as feudalism is.



Aren't you forgetting the *political* side of fascism -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll


The logic of fascism, that you just described (ultra-nationalism), means that some persecuted minority group is *scapegoated* and mass-murdered, to 'justify' the top-down polarization by race or ethnicity. You seem to find this treatment *acceptable*, for some reason, which is atrocious. You should revisit your position.


---


Local Localist wrote:
I plotted some names if that makes things any more clear:
1280927092872364032



You're certainly not showing how fascism is 'progressive', or related to socialism. Stalin *defeated* the fascists, remember -- ?



In the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943),[18][19][20][21] Germany and its allies fought the Soviet Union for control of the city of Stalingrad (now Volgograd) in Southern Russia. Marked by fierce close-quarters combat and direct assaults on civilians in air raids, it is one of the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare, with an estimated 2 million total casualties.[22] After their defeat at Stalingrad, the German High Command had to withdraw considerable military forces from the Western Front to replace their losses.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad



---


Local Localist wrote:
Well, I hope this doesn't undermine my point too much, but I'm actually very young. Perhaps people with properly developed views tend not to be idealistic enough for such endeavours.



I think some people are just more *careful* with the subject matter, than others.
#15106119
I'm not defending fascism. My point is that feudalism is infinitely worse than corporatism. If you're going to put words in my mouth, then I suppose there's no point discussing this further.
#15106120
Local Localist wrote:
I'm not defending fascism. My point is that feudalism is infinitely worse than corporatism. If you're going to put words in my mouth, then I suppose there's no point discussing this further.



Do as you like, but you're racking up *inconsistencies* in your political worldview (as seen in your diagram), which you're unable or unwilling to address.
#15106275
ckaihatsu wrote:How about let's *get rid* of racism *first*,

We did, that's the problem!

The Election of Obama, not just once but twice, proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that White supremacist racism in America was over. Cultural Marxists have been gaslighting us, very successfully it must be said. For the left and for Black Supremacists, the election of Obama was like Ford's greyhound. The Left's recovery from this event was quite remarkable, because of course before they could gaslight the rest of us, they had to gas light themselves. One of the first things they did was to define any opposition to Obama as White Supremacism. This was absurd, but again they were remarkably successful.

Obama didn't just win twice, in 2016, he was more popular than both the White candidates that sought to replace him. Really you just couldn't make this stuff up.
#15106305
Black Consequense wrote:
Where's the thread that you can describe your politics?



Make one. Or do it here.


Rich wrote:
We did, that's the problem!

The Election of Obama, not just once but twice, proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that White supremacist racism in America was over. Cultural Marxists have been gaslighting us, very successfully it must be said. For the left and for Black Supremacists, the election of Obama was like Ford's greyhound. The Left's recovery from this event was quite remarkable, because of course before they could gaslight the rest of us, they had to gas light themselves. One of the first things they did was to define any opposition to Obama as White Supremacism. This was absurd, but again they were remarkably successful.

Obama didn't just win twice, in 2016, he was more popular than both the White candidates that sought to replace him. Really you just couldn't make this stuff up.



Well, that's a *good* thing, then, because it shows that the *people* of the U.S. aren't racist. I said on another thread that I think social attitudes are now basically *multicultural*, and that all of the racism now comes entirely from the *government*, or state, as with the detention of immigrants seeking asylum and the tariffs and sanctions.

You're *admitting* that you're a white supremacist? What's up with that?

Blacks *can't* be 'supremacist' because they don't have the *power* in society. Obama was mainly white, anyway, and it was a *token* presidency since his policies basically went with the nationalist apparatus, anyway.

Racism is *hardly* 'over', because of continuing disparities in access to government, income, housing, and access to supermarkets. Blacks are *disproportionately* victims of police brutality, and killer cops.
#15106324
ckaihatsu wrote:You're *admitting* that you're a white supremacist? What's up with that?

:roll: When I said its a problem, I meant that its a problem for Cultural Marxists. My identity is not tied up with being a social justice warrior. I don't have a problem living in a post White Supremacist world. Now before I go on, I am not saying there is no institutionalised White Supremacist racism in the United States or the Western world.

The line of succession of the British monarchy is clearly racist, and I would happily support a change in that. As a compromise perhaps, we could skip Charles and go straight to Harry and Meghan. This would only be acceptable if Megan was given joint succession in her own right. That would mean she would still become Queen even if Harry married someone else before they came to the throne.

The voting rules for The US Presidency, Us Senate and US House of Representatives are clearly institutionalised anti Black and anti Jewish racism.
#15106327
Rich wrote:
:roll: When I said its a problem, I meant that its a problem for Cultural Marxists. My identity is not tied up with being a social justice warrior. I don't have a problem living in a post White Supremacist world. Now before I go on, I am not saying there is no institutionalised White Supremacist racism in the United States or the Western world.



And then you end your post with this:


Rich wrote:
The voting rules for The US Presidency, Us Senate and US House of Representatives are clearly institutionalised anti Black and anti Jewish racism.



So *which* is, is it 'post-white-supremacist, or *is there* institutionalized white supremacist racism in the U.S.?


---


Rich wrote:
The line of succession of the British monarchy is clearly racist, and I would happily support a change in that. As a compromise perhaps, we could skip Charles and go straight to Harry and Meghan. This would only be acceptable if Megan was given joint succession in her own right. That would mean she would still become Queen even if Harry married someone else before they came to the throne.

The voting rules for The US Presidency, Us Senate and US House of Representatives are clearly institutionalised anti Black and anti Jewish racism.



There's no more monarchy in the sense of state-power, so it's all *cultural* imperialism, or celebrity culture, at this point. And, post-Brexit, England's footprint on the world is *much* smaller than during its time as empire.
#15106333
ckaihatsu wrote:So *which* is, is it 'post-white-supremacist, or *is there* institutionalized white supremacist racism in the U.S.?

There was no defining moment when we moved from a White supremacist culture to a hate-Whites culture. Even in the 1950s, no doubt there were situations where being Black gave you an unfair advantage. Discrimination against WIGs (White infidel Gentiles) is rampant in the West, but that doesn't mean there is absolutely no where non Whites, Muslims or Jews have an institutionalised disadvantage.

If non Whites didn't have such huge privileges in America, white people wouldn't pretend to be non White. Pocahontas aka Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have pretended to be Cherokee, if there system wasn't already massively biased against white people even in the 1980s. :lol: The funny thing is her alleged Cherokee ancestors may well have been owners of Black slaves.
#15106343
Rich wrote:
There was no defining moment when we moved from a White supremacist culture to a hate-Whites culture. Even in the 1950s, no doubt there were situations where being Black gave you an unfair advantage. Discrimination against WIGs (White infidel Gentiles) is rampant in the West, but that doesn't mean there is absolutely no where non Whites, Muslims or Jews have an institutionalised disadvantage.

If non Whites didn't have such huge privileges in America, white people wouldn't pretend to be non White. Pocahontas aka Elizabeth Warren wouldn't have pretended to be Cherokee, if there system wasn't already massively biased against white people even in the 1980s. :lol: The funny thing is her alleged Cherokee ancestors may well have been owners of Black slaves.



Cut the shit, and let's just cut-to-the-chase, shall we?



Racial disparities

The wealth gap between white and black families nearly tripled from $85,000 in 1984 to $236,500 in 2009.[74]

There are many causes, including years of home ownership, household income, unemployment, and education, but inheritance might be the most important.[74] Inheritance can directly link the disadvantaged economic position and prospects of today's blacks to the disadvantaged positions of their parents' and grandparents' generations. According to a report done by Robert B. Avery and Michael S. Rendall, "one in three white households will receive a substantial inheritance during their lifetime compared to only one in ten black households."[75] This relative lack of inheritance that has been observed among African Americans can be attributed in large part to factors such as unpaid labor (slavery), violent destruction of personal property in incidents such as Red Summer of 1919, unequal opportunity in education and employment (racial discrimination), and more recent policies such as redlining and planned shrinkage. Other ethnic minorities, particularly those with darker complexions, have at times faced many of these same adversities to various degrees.[76]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in ... isparities
#15106422
ckaihatsu wrote:Cut the shit, and let's just cut-to-the-chase, shall we?

Yes so there are very substantial gaps between Blacks and Whites, in terms of wealth, incomes, professions and general life outcomes. So what? There are very substantial gaps between Jews and White Gentiles, in terms of wealth, incomes, professions and general life outcomes. The same can be said of other groups. Hindus I think might actually be doing doing better than Jews by some measures.

So I'm actually pretty Liberal, I'm actually pretty progressive. The fact that some people mistake me for a right winger says far more about the demented nature of left politics than it does about me. In the sixties and seventies and possibly going into the eighties, I think some level of affirmative action for Blacks was OK. But not now. Poor people have less advantages and more disadvantages than rich people. I'm supportive of income redistribution, I'm supportive of strong taxation on inheritance, but only if these measures are race neutral.

Yes you can say its unfair to be born poor, but its just as unfair to born White poor as it is to be Black poor. I see no reason why a poor Black should get more help than a poor White. Similarly I see no justification for a rich Black getting a leg up over a rich White. People of the same economic status / position should be treated the same. This is not the case at the moment. There is massive discrimination against White people. There is increasing discrimination against Americans Asians.
#15106433
Rich wrote:
I think some level of affirmative action for Blacks was OK. But not now.


Rich wrote:
I'm supportive of income redistribution,



Aren't these positions *contradictory*?

(Affirmative action could be viewed as a race-based form of income redistribution, through increased education and employment for that social minority group.)


Rich wrote:
Yes so there are very substantial gaps between Blacks and Whites, in terms of wealth, incomes, professions and general life outcomes. So what? There are very substantial gaps between Jews and White Gentiles, in terms of wealth, incomes, professions and general life outcomes. The same can be said of other groups. Hindus I think might actually be doing doing better than Jews by some measures.

So I'm actually pretty Liberal, I'm actually pretty progressive. The fact that some people mistake me for a right winger says far more about the demented nature of left politics than it does about me. In the sixties and seventies and possibly going into the eighties, I think some level of affirmative action for Blacks was OK. But not now. Poor people have less advantages and more disadvantages than rich people. I'm supportive of income redistribution, I'm supportive of strong taxation on inheritance, but only if these measures are race neutral.

Yes you can say its unfair to be born poor, but its just as unfair to born White poor as it is to be Black poor. I see no reason why a poor Black should get more help than a poor White. Similarly I see no justification for a rich Black getting a leg up over a rich White. People of the same economic status / position should be treated the same. This is not the case at the moment. There is massive discrimination against White people. There is increasing discrimination against Americans Asians.



Would you be in favor of lessened government spending for the military-industrial complex, and policing, with that funding directed towards civil rights enforcement and *social services* spending? (anti-austerity measures)
#15110371
From a Communist standpoint , African-Americans constitute a nationality , which is entitled to self determination . https://www.marxists.org/archive/winternitz/1944/marxism-nationality.htm At the very least , as an autonomous oblast , if not their own ethnostate . https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/when-the-soviet-union-tried-to-woo-black-america/62517/ , https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-belt-republic-1928-1934/ , https://www.panafricanalliance.com/communist-plot-create-african-american-republic/ , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA_and_African_Americans The question remains , how would this be accomplished ; and in addition , similarly to the issue of socialist Zionism , mentioned elsewhere , what of the White Caucasians whom dwell in the area of the proposed Black Republic ? So while I as a Communist certainly do support the idea of Black power , I also likewise uphold the principle of plurinationalism .
#15110376
Deutschmania wrote:
From a Communist standpoint , African-Americans constitute a nationality , which is entitled to self determination . https://www.marxists.org/archive/winternitz/1944/marxism-nationality.htm At the very least , as an autonomous oblast , if not their own ethnostate . https://www.ozy.com/true-and-stories/when-the-soviet-union-tried-to-woo-black-america/62517/ , https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-belt-republic-1928-1934/ , https://www.panafricanalliance.com/communist-plot-create-african-american-republic/ , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_New_Afrika , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA_and_African_Americans The question remains , how would this be accomplished ; and in addition , similarly to the issue of socialist Zionism , mentioned elsewhere , what of the White Caucasians whom dwell in the area of the proposed Black Republic ? So while I as a Communist certainly do support the idea of Black power , I also likewise uphold the principle of plurinationalism .




Plurinationality, plurinational, or plurinationalism is defined as the coexistence of two or more sealed or preserved national groups within a polity[1] (an organized community or body of peoples[2]). Ecuadorian ex-President Rafael Correa defined plurinationalism as the coexistence of several different nationalities within a larger state where different peoples, cultures and worldviews exist and are recognized.[3] In plurinationalism, the idea of nationality is plural, meaning there are many nationals within an organized community or body of peoples. Derived from this concept, a plurinational state is the existence of multiple political communities and constitutional asymmetry. The usage of plurinationality assists in avoiding the division of societies within a state or country. Furthermore, a plurinational democracy recognizes the multiple demoi (common people or populace)[4] within a polity.[1]

Contents

Plurinational state Edit

A plurinational state is formed by political and administrative decentralization, wherein the administrative system is culturally heterogeneous and allows the participation of all the social sectors and groups. The elements of a plurinational state include being plural, redistributive, antibureaucratic, and a democracy that defends solidarity. It also has the following additional characteristics: decentralization, autonomy, sustainability, equality, and diversity.[5]



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurinationalism



Sure, the political principle of cultural / national *self-determination* is crucial, as for blacks / BLM, the Kurds, Quebecois, etc., but what this 'plurinational' position is missing is the objective necessity for *centralization*, meaning *consistency*, which is what government is able to *do*.

I'll simply invoke the relatively simple example of weights-and-measures, meaning consistent standards over how commercial items are *measured*, which is inherently a function of *governance*. Sure, I don't think all hell would immediately break loose into *dozens* of competing private-minded systems of measurement standards (pounds vs. kilograms, etc.) and currencies (dollars vs. euros, etc.), but over time the private-interest-minded dynamic of *branding* could easily be extended to *measurements*, with some branded-measurement-system being used by one corporate empire, versus all others, just causing headaches for consumers in this much-too-decentralized economic landscape.

You mentioned Zionism, and look at all the problems *that's* causing, in the name of circumscribed ethnic-based self-determination / nationalism / adventurism in the region, leading into an *apartheid* state internally, like that seen in past decades in the U.S. or South Africa, yet still here today in 2020.

What I'm leading *into* is the point that the *economics* of a region objectively calls for *consistency* and *standards*, even if the diverse populations *within* are calling for balkanized areas of self-determination -- in other words, it's a *contradiction*, or *friction* between the economics and the politics, inherently, thanks to the way that capitalism seeks to be international and global, while the international patchwork of nation-states *governance* is relatively subdivided and balkanized.

I'll note that, in our post-colonialist political world the only way to now realize subgroup *self-determination* is with a *revolutionary* shift to a *post-capitalist* economics, one of workers-of-the-world socialism that can adequately *globalize* social production without the albatross of bourgeois *nation-states*.

I created an illustrated depiction of this:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
Welcome to PoFoLandia

This "Saeko the Accursed" sounds like sh[…]

So why did they get it so wrong? I know hindsight[…]

Red States vs. Blue States

Stop playing the Belorussian trick (i.e. someone […]

It looks like the entire controversy cited here b[…]