Online (Political/Economic Theory) Dictionaries

http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/tyranny-of-the-majority.php

http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/syndicalism.php

Really helpful. Thanks!

elysium wrote:http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/tyranny-of-the-majority.php

http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/syndicalism.php

The tyranny of the majority is certainly a valid argument against true democracy, but it is less effective against less direct forms. Ratifying a constitution is one method of mitigating the negative effects of majority rule. There are more substantial arguments against democracy than the rather outdated appeal to the tyranny of the majority, whose counterpart, the tyranny of the minority, is hardly more savory.

Hi Revolutionary Wolf,

Although you have a good point, the tyranny of the majority may be the way global hegemony is established, i.e., instead of making the world safe for democracy, the goal increasingly becomes make every country a democracy; installing capitalist economies, et al. This can be easily accomplished when the masses back every invasion, and decision that benefits the corporate class ultimately, as they cling to the false hope that upward mobility is within their grasp.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:

elysium wrote:http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/tyranny-of-the-majority.php

http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/syndicalism.php

The tyranny of the majority is certainly a valid argument against true democracy, but it is less effective against less direct forms. Ratifying a constitution is one method of mitigating the negative effects of majority rule. There are more substantial arguments against democracy than the rather outdated appeal to the tyranny of the majority, whose counterpart the tyranny of the minority is hardly more savory.

elysium wrote:Hi Revolutionary Wolf,

Although you have a good point, the tyranny of the majority may be the way global hegemony is established, i.e., instead of making the world safe for democracy, the goal increasingly becomes make every country a democracy; installing capitalist economies, et al. This can be easily accomplished when the masses back every invasion, and decision that benefits the corporate class ultimately, as they cling to the false hope that upward mobility is within their grasp.

Revolutionary Wolf wrote:

elysium wrote:http://www.politicsprofessor.com/politicaltheories/tyranny-of-the-majority.php

http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/syndicalism.php

The tyranny of the majority is certainly a valid argument against true democracy, but it is less effective against less direct forms. Ratifying a constitution is one method of mitigating the negative effects of majority rule. There are more substantial arguments against democracy than the rather outdated appeal to the tyranny of the majority, whose counterpart the tyranny of the minority is hardly more savory.

When considering democratic decision making within a capitalist framework, the equation is altered significantly. Capitalism does not favor any form of government in particular; it favors profit for the capitalist. To be more specific, the free market favors profit itself, but capitalist class relations uphold and solidify this tendency above all else. Capitalist governments have favored both "democratic" movements and palpably repressive authoritarian regimes if the effect upon major industry (in reality, major investors) is beneficial.

I would say, however, that democracy, which essentially produces a political market of sorts, is more adversely impacted by capitalism than is an authoritarian state, which is more capable of maintaining internal stability and, by extension, social homogeneity.

In my opinion, i believe "the tyranny of the majority" to be a moot point, when all the interests around it are dictatorships, or corrupted, meaning, when what controls said "democracy" are corporations or political parties, who work like dictatorships or very corrupted "republics".

One must never forget that it is the ability to amass capital, and use it to exploite others that creates the direct line between money and power.

What incentive could and individual, or even a group have to run for office, if they couldn't put themselves later into a "capitalist" exploitive position?

In the old forum i had an interesting argumentation with Revolutionary Wolf about a "style of leadership", and it's a shame that thread is lost.

Hi Leon Mcnichol,

I don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a moot point, because people (the masses) are being driven by needs/consumerism, rather than by ideas. This is learned/reinforced inferiority - teaching people to rely on others for their thoughts (and thinking for others at the expense of one's self) - i.e., political correctness; motivation and reason to mobilize, as well as the only way to obtain their bread.

Even if capitalism is crushed, the devolutionary mechanism (of the thwarted mind) will still be in place, yes?

When people across the world see how Americans were reduced, from vibrant, autonomous persons/groups to non-thinking, automatons, easily led by politicians - tyrannies, dictators, and repressive governments the world over, will be clamoring for democracy, even if it is called by another name (as a means to control the masses). It will be much as it is now, 'democracy' for the worker, and socialism for the rich (bailouts, surplus/the capitalists profit).

The battle for the mind is also a means and ends for increased profits, is it not?

I would posit that this is the real(politik) domino effect, that our current foreign policy seeks to implement.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:In my opinion, i believe "the tyranny of the majority" to be a moot point, when all the interests around it are dictatorships, or corrupted, meaning, when what controls said "democracy" are corporations or political parties, who work like dictatorships or very corrupted "republics".

One must never forget that it is the ability to amass capital, and use it to exploite others that creates the direct line between money and power.

What incentive could and individual, or even a group have to run for office, if they couldn't put themselves later into a "capitalist" exploitive position?

In the old forum i had an interesting argumentation with Revolutionary Wolf about a "style of leadership", and it's a shame that thread is lost.

Hi Leon Mcnichol,

I don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a moot point, because people (the masses) are being driven by needs/consumerism, rather than by ideas. This is learned/reinforced inferiority - teaching people to rely on others for their thoughts (and thinking for others at the expense of one's self) - i.e., political correctness; motivation and reason to mobilize, as well as the only way to obtain their bread.

Even if capitalism is crushed, the devolutionary mechanism (of the thwarted mind) will still be in place, yes?

When people across the world see how Americans were reduced, from vibrant, autonomous persons/groups to non-thinking, automatons, easily led by politicians - tyrannies, dictators, and repressive governments the world over, will be clamoring for democracy, even if it is called by another name (as a means to control the masses). It will be much as it is now, 'democracy' for the worker, and socialism for the rich (bailouts, surplus/the capitalists profit).

The battle for the mind is also a means and ends for increased profits, is it not?

I would posit that this is the real(politik) domino effect, that our current foreign policy seeks to implement.

Like i said in another thread, i don't think democracy is the problem. In fact, the problem is that the capitalist system was able to circunvent demcoracy with the implementation of the political party system. A democracy, any democracy, gives a choice, and a choice involves a thinking process. Any thinking process makes people think, wich therefore shows that such decisions had at least some degree of responsibility upon them.

The fact that the system effectively placed puppets in all political parties in order to render this "choice" virtually nonexistant is a consequence of the excessive power that money and corporations have in today's society, not of any fault of democracy itself. That said, i think political parties are undesirable in any democracy that wants to represent the interests of it's people.

The fact that in almost all European countries have huge segments of the population not turning up to vote has much to do with the fact that they know the candidates are virtually all the same, and there is always a relentless propaganda to "bore" people out of political discussin, as well as to make people turn themselves to more consumerish activities, exactly because the "dictatorships" of the corporations are the ones really in power. The people now behave like the people in Rome after the senate lost effective power to the emperor. They know they can't change a thing, so they get uninterested and turn into futile activities.

...not that democracy is bad..., but rather, how it appears, and the co-opting of much that seems to go with it (particularly, a passive population).

Leon Mcnichol wrote:

Hi Leon Mcnichol,

I don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a moot point, because people (the masses) are being driven by needs/consumerism, rather than by ideas. This is learned/reinforced inferiority - teaching people to rely on others for their thoughts (and thinking for others at the expense of one's self) - i.e., political correctness; motivation and reason to mobilize, as well as the only way to obtain their bread.

Even if capitalism is crushed, the devolutionary mechanism (of the thwarted mind) will still be in place, yes?

When people across the world see how Americans were reduced, from vibrant, autonomous persons/groups to non-thinking, automatons, easily led by politicians - tyrannies, dictators, and repressive governments the world over, will be clamoring for democracy, even if it is called by another name (as a means to control the masses). It will be much as it is now, 'democracy' for the worker, and socialism for the rich (bailouts, surplus/the capitalists profit).

The battle for the mind is also a means and ends for increased profits, is it not?

I would posit that this is the real(politik) domino effect, that our current foreign policy seeks to implement.

Like i said in another thread, i don't think democracy is the problem. In fact, the problem is that the capitalist system was able to circunvent demcoracy with the implementation of the political party system. A democracy, any democracy, gives a choice, and a choice involves a thinking process. Any thinking process makes people think, wich therefore shows that such decisions had at least some degree of responsibility upon them.

The fact that the system effectively placed puppets in all political parties in order to render this "choice" virtually nonexistant is a consequence of the excessive power that money and corporations have in today's society, not of any fault of democracy itself. That said, i think political parties are undesirable in any democracy that wants to represent the interests of it's people.

The fact that in almost all European countries have huge segments of the population not turning up to vote has much to do with the fact that they know the candidates are virtually all the same, and there is always a relentless propaganda to "bore" people out of political discussin, as well as to make people turn themselves to more consumerish activities, exactly because the "dictatorships" of the corporations are the ones really in power. The people now behave like the people in Rome after the senate lost effective power to the emperor. They know they can't change a thing, so they get uninterested and turn into futile activities.

What class benefits from the argument that "tyranny of the majority " is a key problem?

See, I don't think this argument is an abstract one coming out of thin air from nowhere.
I think it has been cultivated and brought to the fore by those who aim to serve the capitalist class as its mercenary political agents in imposing austerity, dispossessing 'the majority' (ie, working peoples), and defending and advancing the class interests of its capitalist patrons in society by harsh 'undemocratic' and unaccountable governance methods.

Besides, I have to ask, where is this supposed "tyranny of the majority" actually practiced in the decision-making institutional processes of modern capitalist societies?
Do the people actually decide?
Or is "democratic" decision-making 'by the people' an illusionary BIG LIE masking the actual dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in capitalist society?
To determine the answer, look not only at the formal legal power structure (i.e., what it says in the constitution and the legal statutes), but instead primarily we must look at the actual power relationships in a society (i.e., who has a hegemony of actual power and wields that power in society, and why do they have this actual power?).

First of all, I think we need to establish the fact that 'democracy', as practiced in the capitalist West, is a farce. Using the United States as an example, I can tell you that the people exercise very little collective participation in the affairs of governance —apart from the occasional local referendum. It's anything but a tyranny imposed by majority rule.

Far from advocating on behalf of further mitigating democratic participation, I think a fundamental socialist imperative should be to eventually expand said participation, so long as it cannot serve to undermine the basis of a post-revolutionary state. [The initial phases of such an order is another question entirely.] Indeed, increasing democratic accountability is one of the only ways to ensure that a socialist state's social contract is not undermined by its representatives. [Both the late Soviet Union and the current People's Republic of China serve as clear examples of how such autocratic systems eventually so alienate the state from its foundational values that its functionaries even begin to flirt with capitalism, as a means of further aggrandizing themselves.]

Very few socialists —and surely no Revolutionary Syndicalists— oppose the notion of economic democracy; as one surely cannot transcend capitalism without first dispensing with that particular authoritarian relationship. However, it's true that the requisites for economic democracy and political democracy are very different. The same is true of their respective implications. For instance, the utilization of market mechanisms, as well as instances of various forms of state intervention, serve as checks against poorly constructed enterprises. On the other hand, a political system constructed as a 'pure' democracy lacks safeguards against singular instances majority decision.

Nevertheless, the prospects of greater democratic participation in politics would not appear as daunting as it does to some if individuals took into account the sorts of fundamental changes socialist revolution would usher in. For example, at present we have a political system built upon social consent that is manufactured through the imposition of superficial bourgeois values. As such, we have populations that are largely indifferent to the substance of most issues. Popular political engagement is either supplanted entirely (with various material trivialities) or reduced to a commercialized enterprise, intended to pander to a society's lowest common denominator. Now, if the state were truly to engage its citizenry —by fostering a social climate that no longer sought to accord significance to the superficial (which is what the public relations industry is all about) and instead decided to impart meaningful values onto the people (through various educational programs, an honest media, etc.)— their political empowerment could serve many productive purposes. Most importantly, it would ensure the ideological fidelity of the state, as well as accord positions of political leadership on a more meritocratic basis.