Hypothetical: If a small European country elected Hitler, would you immediately move there?

submitted by radicalcentristNational Centrism from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]NeoRail 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What they all have in common is that eventually the people boot the foreign overlords out, either by military means, or by taking advantage of the political turmoil in the capital.

That's not really true, in many cases what happens instead is an external force invades or destabilises the country, like what happened in India for example. However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

[–]Lugger 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

However it's important to note that "eventually" is not a very useful category to work with. According to this same logic, all monoethnic societies "eventually" collapse. It's technically true, but it's not a very useful observation.

I'll put it another way.

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

An order based on having a small racial minority rule over a majority of people of other race(s) is 100% bound to crumble due to the very rotten nature of such a foundation, which is, as I have said, unsustainable.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

A 'monoethnic society', depending on various factorts, may or may not 'eventually' collapse.

That's a truism, it is not a meaningful observation. That's my point. When you say something will "eventually collapse" or "may or may not eventually collapse", you are not making any meaningful arguments. Over time, polities do have a tendency to collapse, yes. In order to make a meaningful point, you would have to make a more specific claim. So, for example, the Ottoman Empire lasted roughly 600 years, probably a bit more. It "eventually" collapsed, but I do not think that it experienced any particular longevity issues when compared with monoethnic states. Do you see the problem?

[–]Lugger 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That's a truism, it is not a meaningful observation. That's my point.

And my point is that 'normal' societies rise and fall, but, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from lasting forever whereas SA-tier type ones are guaranteed to break down just because of that single factor we're discussing.

So, for example, the Ottoman Empire lasted roughly 600 years, probably a bit more. It "eventually" collapsed, but I do not think that it experienced any particular longevity issues when compared with monoethnic states.

I don't think Empires can be compared to countries like SA. They are fundamentally different entities.

Empires, naturally, are all about expanding, conquering other people, exploting them and sucking their resources dry for the good of the capital while enforing this order at gunpoint.

Oh, and don't forget that empires, barring a few very rare cases, tended not to settle the conquered territories with large amounts of the founding ethnic group, leaving 'just' a military garrison and occupational government instead.

Case in point: British-ruled India.

Even if Ramajar was a second-class citizen in the greater British Empire, in his homeland there were little British people to interact with, so he didn't have as many reasons for resentment as blax in South Africa who shared the country/land with their white 'masters'.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

And my point is that 'normal' societies rise and fall, but, in theory, there's nothing stopping them from lasting forever whereas SA-tier type ones are guaranteed to break down just because of that single factor we're discussing.

So in theory there is nothing else stopping them from lasting forever except for all the things that do stop them? Again, it would appear that there are many factors which can lead to the collapse of the society and that a "diverse" population is hardly the most decisive one, else we would not have examples of such societies lasting centuries.

You are also evading the issue. I pointed out that South Africa collapsed because of external factors, not because of domestic ones. You asserted that it would have collapsed anyway because a racial minority cannot sustain its ruling class status. I gave you an example of the opposite, which lasted centuries and clearly contradicts your claim. Now you are talking about issues of resentment, but I fail to see how this advances your argument, because again, South Africa fell because of outside interference, not domestic factors. Resentment is quite irrelevant as a factor and many of the most resented occupiers have also been the most successful ones. If your claim is that inter-group resentment is what leads to state collapse, you will have to demonstrate that by explaining why this is an important and influential factor.

[–]Lugger 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

So in theory there is nothing else stopping them from lasting forever except for all the things that do stop them?

Way to miss the point.

A 'monoethnic society' in a vacuum doesn't have any inherent factors that will undoubtedly lead to its collapse.

The same thing cannot be said about SA-type ones.

...else we would not have examples of such societies lasting centuries.

I gave you an example of the opposite, which lasted centuries and clearly contradicts your claim.

You gave me an example of an empire, which, as I have stated above, cannot be compared to 'regular' countries like SA.

But yeah, if the land now known as the SA had remained a part of the British Empire, and the Empire still existed, it would indeed have had a chance at lasting as long the Empire itself would, as it would have had its vast military and resources to back up the regime.

Now you are talking about issues of resentment, but I fail to see how this advances your argument, because again, South Africa fell because of outside interference, not domestic factors.

Well, as you have written yourself:

You asserted that it would have collapsed anyway because a racial minority cannot sustain its ruling class status.

Honestly, this discussion reminds me of whether or not the Confederacy, had it won the war, would have been able to keep the slavery forever.

Supporters of the CSA apparently believe that the country would have no problem keeping the blax enslaved, as to argue otherwise would mean that, since the deportation was out of the question due to how large the share of the black population was, the Confederacy would 'eventually' have to free the slaves and let them loose in their cities like the hated Yankees did — and this is something the Confederatards would never concede in a lifetime.

Doesn't the theoretical scenario with the victorious CSA remind you of anything?

What I'm arguing is that the SA's situation, as far as demographics are concerned, was waaaaaaaaaay worse that that of the Confederacy, and the country was doomed from the start due to this single factor.

And yeah, looking at the state of the world in the 1990s, the SA would not have lasted 30-40 years more anyway even without outside pressure, because all, literally all the Empires had already fallen and colonies had been freed of the occupiers, so it was only a question of time before the anti-colonial sentiment reached the very colonial-like society of SA.

Agree that the country could have lasted much longer had the colonialism continued to exist though.

[–]NeoRail 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't have the time to continue this conversation much longer, so this will probably be my last post. I am confident that I am correct and I invite you to examine our posts further, if you would like.

A 'monoethnic society' in a vacuum doesn't have any inherent factors that will undoubtedly lead to its collapse.

I have not missed the point, I am pointing out a flawed argument. Does any society have any "inherent factors that will undoubtedly lead to its collapse"? It is easy to say that there are, but only because there is a large number of historical examples of this. Otherwise, we would not be able to "undoubtedly" claim anything. Now, history shows us that both monoethnic and multiethnic societies collapse. Evidently, there are factors that "undoubtedly" lead to collapse in both. As to the "in a vacuum" part, it is arbitrary and not really possible to practically address. Besides, the world does not exist in a vacuum. But if that's how you want to play it, I could just as well claim that the only reason multiethnic societies collapse is because of some form of outside influence and if I was really stubborn about this point you would not be able to decisively refute me, because every human society of note has at least some form of notable external connection.

You gave me an example of an empire, which, as I have stated above, cannot be compared to 'regular' countries like SA.

You have not given a single valid reason why that should be the case, what the difference between "empires" and "regular countries" is, or why the Ottoman Empire should be considered an empire and SA shouldn't, especially when typically people understand empire to just mean any multiethnic state.

But yeah, if the land now known as the SA had remained a part of the British Empire, and the Empire still existed, it would indeed have had a chance at lasting as long the Empire itself would, as it would have had its vast military and resources to back up the regime.

Or alternatively, if the entire northern hemisphere hadn't united with the explicit intention of destroying SA, SA would not have had any problems lasting into the future. I think my claim is much simpler and more elegant than yours here.

Well, as you have written yourself:

I was describing what you asserted, but your assertion is unproven and is indeed refuted by history.

We are not discussing the CSA and I have no interest in that topic so I will not address that, especially as it seems to offer no argument.

What I'm arguing is that the SA's situation, as far as demographics are concerned, was waaaaaaaaaay worse that that of the Confederacy, and the country was doomed from the start due to this single factor.

Well, as we have found, the country collapsed because of outside interference, not because of domestic factors, much less the demographic factor alone. We have also found that the demographic factor is not all that significant, seeing how racial minorities have successfully protected their elite status for centuries various times throughout history. I do not see how there can be any merit in your claim here, which seems irreconcilable with the other things we have established and with history.

And yeah, looking at the state of the world in the 1990s, the SA would not have lasted 30-40 years more anyway even without outside pressure, because all, literally all the Empires had already fallen and colonies had been freed of the occupiers, so it was only a question of time before the anti-colonial sentiment reached the very colonial-like society of SA.

You make a good point here about the historical moment, but once again, this has a lot more to do with external rather than domestic factors. The anti-colonial revolts of the postwar period were successful because they found the endorsement and support of the two global superpowers and of immense political forces in Europe as well. Consequently, these anti-colonial movements enjoyed significant material and moral support from abroad, which one could argue would have inevitably destroyed South Africa either way. That, however, is a very different claim from saying that the demographic factor alone would have destroyed South Africa.

[–]EthnocratArcheofuturist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm late to the party here, but I just want to say that your comments in this conversation were great. You're right. Demography is not destiny. Political power is.

[–]NeoRail 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Precisely.