You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).

Do you think that if leftists completely dropped any support for DEI and CRT that their opponents would suddenly support programs that aggressively attack wealth inequality?

No, but US wealth inequality is going to worsen now because of the US Dept. of Education being gutted, which is worse than DEI going away. I think education and welfare programs will make easier policies for majority of voters to vote for. More of the US population is poor than a minority of some kind. The danger I was alarmed by (admittedly a knee jerk reaction) is that increasing polarization is going to be used by authoritarians to win and install their own preferred systems. Poverty reducing efforts like in the Nordic model will be popular, but also something some types of politicians cannot favor because of their prior party stance.

You’re right, that’s why Title VII and VIII were written to address those aspects

I meant politicians will abuse the intention of these policies to gain favor from poor white voters, and that nation state actors will cause polarization by highlighting the growing discontent in various ways.

I think policies in the Nordic model are more along those lines, tbh.

I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.

Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:

So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.

The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.

I added it.

Okay, I’ll add those.

It’s in the OP.

Look, if I am wrong I want to know. I said I won’t respond to those posts because it’s not meant to be an argument.

It’s shared in the OP.

It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

/lazyposting

So interesting thing to note from history, in many cases western people or nations pulled ahead by betraying non-western allies or peoples. The prosperity of the current globalist, neoliberal world is built on multicultural alliances.

Basically people like this are signaling to anyone who’s paying attention and has been keeping score of historical record “DONT TRUST US, WE WILL BETRAY YOU!!”. There’s just not enough economic activity in the western nations to uphold their current levels of activity and productivity without multicultural alliances, so this is an interesting turn.

Power is an interesting concept because a lot of it is assumed on the part of those who claim it, and those who relinquish it often don’t even realize the cards they hold because they’re gaslit into believing the lies of their opponents. What a shitty and annoying world, and here I was hoping for a Star Trek future in my lifetime.

Lastly, the whole “white supremacy” thing doesn’t make sense when there are people of Persian descent who are more Aryan than many white Europeans, so that’s a huge lol.

The common thread in successful countries is not overthrowing of “imperialists”, it’s nationalism.

Okay, here’s someone else then, basically there’s no ownership on land by anyone in China.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/vychg7/how_does_home_ownership_work_in_china/

The 90% figure also excludes rural residents, so it’s probably inflated.

Many countries used other people as slaves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

The U.S. or western nations were hardly the first to do it, but the way things came together at that point in history certainly helped.

Regardless, many countries which exploited the trans-Atlantic slave trade aren’t even that successful now, relative to the U.S. so it’s not just slavery which made America what it is.

https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/

Now days slavery is not just a west only problem though. But the west is more honest about its history than most in this regard.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery

I think oppression politics exist solely in the hopes of redistributing wealth to a new cadre of ghouls who won’t be any better than the first. That’s not social justice, it’s revenge.

Oh please, forget it. You think they didn’t do that in countries which succeeded?

And you’ve shown time and time again that you choose to misrepresent things. No one owns anything in China lol, the government leases the land.